One might think it unlikely that an insured would insure the same subject- matter more than once. What would be the point? Premium would be wasted because no gain would be made; the insured could never obtain more than an indemnity for his loss.
It is, nevertheless, perfectly lawful for any insured to insure any item or liability as many times as he wishes, despite the fact that the ability of the insured to over-insure may in some cases be an invitation to fraud. However, this possibility is balanced by the fact that the insured is considered to be perfectly entitled to take out insurance with as many insurers as he wishes in order to minimise any problems which he may have should any one insurer become insolvent or otherwise refuse or become unable to pay a valid claim. This right has arisen historically because the statutory provisions relating to over-insurance were formulated at a time when insurance companies were not properly regulated and the possibility not only of insolvency but also of fraud on the part of the insurers was a more common likelihood than is perhaps the case today.
It is also possible that an insured might want to insure against loss resulting from a peril excluded by the ARPI policy. However, his additional policy will probably also cover risks already covered by the ARPI policy. He may then suffer a loss which is covered by both policies. Who pays, and can the paying insurer recover anything from the other?