I've been doing some more thinking and digging. According to Jay, the insurance claim was denied because the value of the goods had changed taking it across some arbitrary threshold such that their policy no longer covers it. This apparently caused the insurance company to deny a claim, not only for the replacement cost, but also for the original cost.

I don't know the name of the insurance company or policy, when the insurance was taken out on the item or when the claim was allegedly filed so I can't do any detailed digging, but I did have some thoughts:

- The insurance company obviously has something in their T&Cs which states that if the value of an item changes by a certain percent or value, then they won't cover it. Coinabul should reasonably have known about this.
- Silver is a volatile market. Coinabul should have reasonably expected the price of silver to fluctuate between taking out the insurance and a possible claim.
- The above two points together show that Coinabul could (and should) have reasonably taken steps to ensure that their insurance arrangements were adequate to cover market fluctuations, but was negligent in failing to do so.
- I could not have reasonably known about this or taken steps to avoid this, not being a party to the insurance contract or having access to the details of the contract.
- Coinabul, not I, have been negligent in this instance and should therefore be culpable.

That they have allegedly changed their insurance structure to avoid this only attests to their negligence in my case. I no longer think this is at the foot of the insurance company. It is clearly at the foot of Coinabul. This moves it firmly into scam territory. Coinabul mislead me to believe that my order would be sufficiently insured but failed to do so.