direct line-can they do this

[mooshy]

I have paid direct line all my life and never made a claim on anything until this year.I lost my engagement ring and as i had it 20 years only had pics. as proof of purchase.They have offerred me 650. 00 to replace it.Husband paid about 1000 20 years ago.Anyway i rang today because i wanted to choose a ring in Barcelona as we are there a lot and rings are cheaper.Also (didn`t tell them this bit ) i really could do with the money.They told me they take off 356.00 for a cash settlement and then i only get 50% of whats left-about 170 pounds !
So i can have a ring from one of their approved jewellers to the value of 650 quid-or a cheque for 174 ! I must admit i just thought they would send me a cheque.

[craigwalton]

You really need to look in the policy booklet for the wordings.

IF it says something along the lines of If we pay in cash then we only have to pay the amount it was worth at the time it was lost then its a grey area. (If it doesn't or you are not sure then let me know & I will tell you what to do)
If it does it depends on the suppliers. If the supplier is Goldsmith / Signet then you need to ask them are you able to supply me a ring of similar quality gold/siler/platinum, etc, and with a ring of similar clarity / cut / colour?

If no then you need to complain to the insurance that they are unable to indemnify you for the loss through the approved supplier network, so you require a cash settlement, so you can go to an alternative jeweller. They still might refuse the cash settlement - They will probably ask for an estimate. If you go onto a spanish website, send them the estimate BUT MAKE SURE IT IS IN EURO'S for just over £650.00 they should give you the cash.

[girlynutnut]

Craig's absolutley right. Many household policies state that you can have cash but the insurer will only pay the cost to them if they had used their suppliers (reason being that they get substantial discounts so your £650 ring will prob only cost them £400) However, they can only rely on this wording if they are actually able to replace the item. If it is unique and cannot be replaced with exactly the same e.g. antique jewellery, they have to pay you the full amount in cash.

[mooreda]

hello mooshy - i have eight years Technical Claims Experience and have worked for two major insurance companies. From what I have read of your complaint; don't let the insurance company bully you. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A CASH SETTLEMENT AT A NON-DISCOUNTED RATE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE POLICY TERMS ON CLAIMS SETTLEMENT IF YOUR ITEM OF JEWELLERY CAN NOT BE REPLACED BY THE INSURERS JEWELLER ON A LIKE FOR LIKE BASIS. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED ARTICLE WRITTEN BY THE OMBUDSMAN .. repair, replace or cash? - october

repair, replace or cash?

Most household policies now provide ‘new-for-old’ cover but leave it to the insurer (not the policyholder) to decide whether the claim should be settled by repair, replacement, reinstatement or cash settlement. We take the view that the insurer must exercise this power reasonably, in the circumstances of the individual case. This has a number of implications for both parties.
Where insurers opt for repair, we consider they have a duty to explain the implications of any choices made by either party. If the repairer is chosen by the insurer – or its agents (such as loss adjusters) – then it is normally the insurer who will be liable to make good any deficiencies in the repair.
Where a policyholder insists on a particular repairer carrying out the work, then it is the policyholder who will generally be responsible for the quality of the work. This does not mean that every repairer who has provided a claimant with an estimate will be regarded as the claimant’s chosen contractor. We have considered complaints where the insurer told the policyholder to obtain estimates and the policyholder sought the loss adjuster’s assistance in doing so. In these circumstances, we have concluded that the insurer, rather than the policyholder, was liable for the repairer’s shortcomings.
Even if the policyholder chose the repairer entirely independently, the insurer will be responsible for rectifying deficiencies in the work if it or its agents ‘controlled’ the repairer, for example by requiring the repairer to cut his costs or to use certain materials or parts. In those circumstances, the repairer can no longer be regarded as the policyholder’s agent.
Opting for ‘replacement’ is only a reasonable option on the insurer’s part if the object claimed for can be replaced. If the object is antique jewellery, for example, then it is not open to the insurer to insist the claimant buys a modern replacement from a chain shop. Similar issues arise whenever the replacement options are limited. It may, for example, be unreasonable to limit a policyholder’s choice of replacement to a particular retailer.
Policyholders should be allowed to choose where they purchase a replacement and they are entitled to a cash settlement if they cannot find an acceptable alternative. In such circumstances, we would not regard it as reasonable for the insurer to make a deduction from the cash settlement to represent any discount it would have got if the policyholder had bought a replacement from one of the insurer’s nominated suppliers. Nor would it necessarily be appropriate for the insurer to offer vouchers to the policyholder. If the option of replacement is not available, then the only way in which the insurer can indemnify a claimant is by a cash settlement.
In some cases, policyholders may not wish to purchase a replacement for the damaged or stolen goods. This may be, for example, because their circumstances have changed, or the object had sentimental value. Where this is the case, we will normally ask the insurer to agree a cash settlement.

..............

As such I think you have a good case to complain and insist on a full cash settlement in recognition that you cannot reasonably obtain an identical or like for like replacement and further it has sentimental value. If the insurer does not agree - take them to the Ombudsman!