JEWELS OF ACTRESSES

Evening Star, Issue 20687, 9 January 1931, Page 9

JEWELS OF ACTRESSES

INSURANCE COMPANIES REFUSE THE RISK British insurance companies are refusing to insure the jewels owned by actresses. Correspondence on this subject has passed between a prominent company and Miss Maisie Gay. The revuo star was informed that owing to the carelessness shown by artists oyer their jewellery they “ could not invito a continuance of the policy.” “And do you know,” said Maisio Gay, that I’ve paid premiums for six years, and never made a claim. Not one! And think of the chances I have had to lose my furs, my two valuable pendants, and a very nice brooch I’ve got. Even if an actress did lose her jewels, sho would never dare to tell the newspapers about them; sho would bo laughed to death! I thought that old trick was as dead as the war. ’ A theatre manager stated that, judging from inquiries from firms of assessors on behalf of society people who had been careless enough to mislay rings, pendants, and even diamond watches, the misplacing of trinkets was not confined to stage ipeoplc.

An official of tho insurance company said: “The refusal to insure jewellery belonging to actresses is by no means' confined to my company. _ There are unquestionably additional risks in such insurance, and it really amounts to this: they are not worth underwriting. ... , “ Every well-known artist is a target for tho activities of thieves, and the additional chances of loss in theatres and public places are considerable. Women aro notoriously careless with jewellery. ... “We do not wish to create any illwill between tho insurance world and the theatrical profession, hut wo must bo allowed to run our own business on our own lines. . “As to publicity, we had an experience recently—a good deal will bo done simply to secure it.’i