JEWELS OF ACTRESSES

Hawera Star, Volume L, 21 February 1931, Page 9

JEWELS OF ACTRESSES

"PETTISH 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 revue star was informed that owing to the carelessness shown by artists over their jewellery they "could not invite a continuance of the policy.” "And Jo you know, 1 ” said Maisie Gay, "that I’ve paid premiums for six years, and never made a claim. Not one! Andie think of the chances I have had to 1 lose my furs, my two valuable pondants, and a very nice brooch I’ve got! Eeven if an actress did lose her jewels, she would never dare to tell the newspapers about them; she would be 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 asses-; sors on behalf of society people who had been careless enough to mislay

Insurance Companies Refuse Risk

- rings, pendants and oven diamond [ I watches, the misplacing of trinkets was ; I not confined to stage people. An official of the insurance company 1 said: "The refusal to insure jewellery | belonging- to actresses is by no means • confined to my company. There are un- . questionably additional risks in such insurance, and it really amounts, to, | this: They are not worth underwriting. ‘ ‘ Every well-known actress is a ta get for the activities of thieves, and the ■ additional chances of los sin theatres and public places are considerable. Women are notoriously careless with jewellery'. “We do not wish to create any illwill between the insurance world ana the theatrical profession, but we must be allowed to run our own business on our ow r n lines. "As to publicity', wo had an experii cnee recently'—a good deal will be done simply' to secure it.”