I would appreciate any advice on the following.

Last november my mother had her three piece suite cleaned. She got a company in who rushed the job and ripped the material of the sofa.

We got quotes in to recover the suite and they are around the £2k mark.

The insurance company, RSA, have confirmed the policy holder is responsible but as the policy is only an indemnity they are making a deduction for wear and tear and are offering £900.

The suite is a about 10 years old but has hardly been used and is in very good condition, the chairs are 'as new'

What action should we now take?

Should we ask someone from RSA to come and look at the suite and reconsider their offer?

Or, should we try and get the rest from the cleaning company?

Or, do something else?

Any advice on a course of action would be greatly appreciated.

Kippy

Hi Kippyken,

Presumably RSA is your mother's household contents insurer, and she has made the claim via them? There are really two routes to go down with this (but only if you are in a position to prove that the cleaning company caused the damage):

• Pursue RSA again and point out that they should be able to make full recovery against the cleaning company and therefore should reconsider their offer
  
• Issue a letter to the cleaning company pursuing them directly for compensation. If they are a professional outfit they should have a 'treatment extension' under their Public Liability insurance which covers damage to property being worked upon (which is normally excluded under PL cover). Therefore they should refer to their own insurers to deal with as a damage to third party property claim. If they don't have this extension then they'll have to consider making a goodwill payment. However you probably won't get a quick result.
  

I hope that this helps

Best wishes, MC

Hi majorclanger100,

Thanks for the reply

RSA is the cleaning companies insurer and I have a letter from RSA that states that the cleaning company is responsible for the incident ..

However, RSA are saying that policy is only an 'Indemnity' policy and they are therfore making a deduction for wear and tear.

Does this change the position on your advice on what I should do next?

Thanks again for your help

RSA's obligation is to indemnify their insured (cleaning co) for their legal liability to you.

You have a common law duty to mitigate your loss and this may mean replacing your furniture rather than replacing it (although you can take into account sentimentality, colour scheme etc). Possibly you can try arguing that repairs have a far lower carbon footprint and environmental impact than replacement.

If you are satisfied that repairs are the only reasonable option, write to RSA and say so and give them 14 days to settle. If that doesn't get a result go MCOL route.

Hi Bernie,

Thanks for that.

Are you saying even though it is an indemnity policy that RSA are obliged to settle the full amount and not make decustions for wear and tear?

What is the MCOL route?

Thanks again

Hi Kippyken,

Thanks for clarifying the details.

I don't really see how RSA can claim this is an 'indemnity policy' - if they have put this in writing to you then I suggest they are trying to mislead you. Indemnity is only an issue if you are making a claim on your own contents cover or another material damage item.

You are claiming under the Public Liability cover of the cleaning company - this provides them with cover against their legal liability for damages and claimant's costs and expenses caused by accidental damage they caused to your mother's sofa. I agree with Bernie that you should give them 14 days to agree your proposal, and threaten MCOL if not (money claim online - county court action). You may want to remind RSA that repair is the cheapest option - presumably it would cost more to replace the sofa? Also remind them that if you have to go down the MCOL route you'll be claiming for legal costs too.

Unfortunately insurers do like trying it on (as we all know), so don't hesitate to get tough with RSA.

Cheers, MC

Hi MC,

Could the company have an indemnity policy and not public liability and they have claimed under the wrong policy? Or is that a daft question?

Thanks again for your help.

Kippy

Also, sorry,

Would I have to write to them or would and email be sufficient?

Thx,

K

Hi Kippyken

No that's not a daft question at all, as I suspect RSA are either purposely trying to mislead you or the claims handler at RSA is really inexperienced and confused.

The fact it is an 'indemnity' policy (which most commercial insurance policies are) is only relevant under the material damage section (buildings, contents, stock, etc) of the cleaning company policy. They cannot possibly be claiming for your Mum's sofa under this section as it is not their property - it has to be under their Public Liability section.

When making a claim of this sort there is usually a bit of 'horse-trading'. It is best to keep in mind that you should be aiming to get the insurer to pay out what the cleaning company would be liable for in court. A court might agree to a deduction in compensation for wear and tear, or it might not. I'd send RSA a letter (by recorded delivery) with your proposal - it is best to have proof of posting and receipt just in case it does ever progress to court. Make it clear that if you don't receive a positive response to your proposal within 14 days you will proceed to issue a court claim under MCOL. Hopefully RSA will realise that it would just be cheaper to pay the repair costs rather than progress to court, and fold!

I hope that this helps

Best wishes MC

Let's be clear about the indemnity thing. This policy is an indemnity policy but the indemnity is to the cleaners to settle their legal liability to the OP.

The legal liability is to repair or replace (whichever is the most reasonable) the damaged sofa.

The OP has the burden of proof of the value of loss and if repair is the more expensive option has to explain why this is a reasonable route (which may be that it is a treasured family heirloom etc)

Bernie has explained this far more clearly than I have !

Lets hope that RSA reconsider.

majorclanger100, Bernie_the_Bolt,

Guys, many thanks for your ongoing advice. Can I ask what an OP is?

I have written to RSA as advised and they are now sending out a loss adjuster. Is this a good thing?

I have also had this from RSA via email. Are they correct? I know little about insurance, sorry.

"The policy does have public liability cover. Under that section of the

policy it states that we will indemnify the claimant. This means we are legally obliged to put the claimant back in the position they were in before the incident. Not in a better or worse position.

So if the suite is over 12 months old we would make a deduction for wear

and tear and the age of the item is taken into account when a settlement offer is made.

As stated before, your Mum could always go through her own household

Insurers and then they would come to us for a recovery, that is if she has new for old cover on her policy."

The last paragraph isn't an option as she had let the policy lapse.

As always many thanks for your input