Thread: Home Insurance Claim

Hi All,

I've just had to lodge a claim with my home insurers (first ever) for damage to my living room carpet and one of the armchairs because my darling 7 year old daughter decided to try and do her nails in deifferent colours and spilled nail varnish on the carpet and one of the armchairs.

Speaking to the insurers today, they have stated that they will have to treat the armchair as an individual item, even though it is part of a matching set.

The armchair is (in my opinion) beyond repair, the suite is no longer in production so we cannot get hold of another armchair. Should we be able to claim for the cost of a whole new suite or can I only accept a sum equivalent to the value of the armchair?

Thanks in Advance

The technical term for what you have been told is BOLLOX.

The whole point of having insurance is to put you back in the position you were in prior to the loss/accident, so if it is not possible just to get a replacement chair then the whole suite has to be replaced.

It's a bit like if you break/damage part of your bathroom suite and it is no longer available, then the whole lot gets replaced (even the non damaged items).

If you have a new for old policy then it's a simple claim, a whole new suite. If you don't have new for old then it's the value of the suite less an agreed figure for betterment.

If they try and fob you off with anything else post back, Gyzmo's pretty good at these kind of claims so I'm sure he'll give you some sound advice

Mossy

The contents policy will probably have a 'Pairs, Sets and Suites Clause' to clarify this issue.

Have a look at their policy wording. Who is the Insurer and what is the name of the policy type?

H

Originally Posted by Mossycat

The technical term for what you have been told is BOLLOX.

The whole point of having insurance is to put you back in the position you were in prior to the loss/accident, so if it is not possible just to get a replacement chair then the whole suite has to be replaced.

It's a bit like if you break/damage part of your bathroom suite and it is no longer available, then the whole lot gets replaced (even the non damaged items).

If you have a new for old policy then it's a simple claim, a whole new suite. If you don't have new for old then it's the value of the suite less an agreed figure for betterment.

If they try and fob you off with anything else post back, Gyzmo's pretty good at these kind of claims so I'm sure he'll give you some sound advice

Mossy

It all depends on the policy wording though. Some insurers do have a clause which says that they won't pay the cost of replacing undamaged items that are part of a set, even when replacements cannot be matched.

For example, this is what it says in the Norwich Union household policy wording (the same is true of many home insurance policies underwritten by the Aviva group):

Pairs, sets and suites
We will not pay for the cost of replacing
any undamaged items which form part of:
• a set (other than a pair);
• a suite; or
• any other item of a uniform nature,
design or colour, including carpets;
when damage happens to a specific part or
within a clearly identifiable area and
replacements cannot be matched.

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just quoting what the policy wording says, and I'd imagine there is a clause like this in the OP's policy.

As it's set out in the policy wording, it might be harder to challenge as it could be argued that you should've checked this when choosing a policy or during the 14-day cooling off period.

However, if egbb wants to challenge the clause, then I think the best argument would be what Mossycat has already said, ie that the clause means the customer is not being put back into the same position as they were in prior to the accident.

When a section of a policy doesn't seem compliant with the principles of treating customers fairly, I agree it should be challenged.

Thanks LemonTwist, my specialist area is motor claims, it's been about 20 years since I did household claims, so I guess things have changed a bit with certain companies

Mossy

Originally Posted by gyzmo

The same seems to be applicable for motor as well. I have dealt with an alloy wheels claim whereby 2 alloys no longer in production were damaged. The claimant sought the cost of 4 new alloys as opposed to what the engineer offered - the cost to replace 2 alloys. The fos agreed that we had to pay for the 4 alloys.

That's what I would have expected, ie to replace all 4 since the insured had 4 matching alloys before the incident. I can't see how the same won't apply to household policies despite policy wording since the underlying principle of insurance is to put the policyholder back in the position they were in before the loss/damage.

I'd argue it out if they don't replace the entire suite

Mossy

Thanks Guiys, the insurance is with tesco, can't find the policy documents at the moment as we're in the middle of completely re-decorating the house, I'll have a look online and see if I can find any reference to their documentation.

It would seem that the policy doesn't cover the whole suite:

F Basis of Settling Claims
1 For any one item of Contents or part of a set or suite that is lost or damaged,We will decide to either:
a) pay the cost of replacing the item or part as new; or
b) replace the item or part as new; or
c) pay the cost of repairing the item or part; or
d) make a cash payment which will not be more than the amount it would have cost Us to replace or repair the item using Our own suppliers.
We will not pay for the cost of replacing or repair to any undamaged items solely because they form part of a set, suite, group or collection or items of a uniform design, nature or colour.

I've just had a bizarre telephone call from Tesco, they want to call me back on Tuesday for a 20 minute telephone interview to validate my claim!!

What's that all about? I've given them all the details, I was expecting a loss adjuster to come out or don't they do that anymore?

Thanks Gyzmo, I'm not worried about it just confused as to the need for an interview. No need to lie about anything as it's a completely legitimate claim, the first I've ever had to make in 10 years of home ownership.

Hi Egbb, A loss adjuster may have been appointed to deal with your claim but they will access whether it is worth visiting the property or carrying out a telephone interview. Did a restoration company, such as Chemdry, Rainbow or Munters, attend your property to inspect the damage?

OK, did the whole telephone interview with them, they now want me to provide a written statement (paperwork took 3 days to arrive) and also provide them with photographic evidence of my claim, only then will they consider furthering my claim by sendiung someone out. My digital camera is broken so I will now have to go out buy some film and pay for the processing of the film before I can send pictures of the damage to them.

This will result in me being out of pocket, will they pay those additional out of pocket expenses? or should I just ask that they send someone out to inspect the damage and take their own photos?

Tell them you don't have a camera, give them the option of sending you one or sending someone out with a camera, if you have already filled in a claim form tell them that says it all, you have nothing further to add, but if they put specific questions in writing to you then you will answer them.

Mossy

Originally Posted by egbb

I've just had a bizarre telephone call from Tesco, they want to call me back on Tuesday for a 20 minute telephone interview to validate my claim!!

What's that all about? I've given them all the details, I was expecting a loss adjuster to come out or don't they do that anymore?

TTHE INSURANCE COMPANY IM WITH IS DOING THE SAME TO ME AFTER HAVING WATER DAMAGE TO BOTH MY ARMCHAIRS THEY ARE REFUSSING TO PAY FOR THE SET BUT I GOT THE FOM NUMBER I DEFFO GETTING ON TO THEM SO SHOULD U

Originally Posted by egbb

OK, did the whole telephone interview with them, they now want me to provide a written statement (paperwork took 3 days to arrive) and also provide them with photographic evidence of my claim, only then will they consider furthering my claim by sendiung someone out. My digital camera is broken so I will now have to go out buy some film and pay for the processing of the film before I can send pictures of the damage to them.

This will result in me being out of pocket, will they pay those additional out of pocket expenses? or should I just ask that they send someone out to inspect the damage and take their own photos?

Unfortunately some policies stipulate that you are responsible for incurring the cost of reports and evidence for your claim...check your policy.

As MossyCat said, tell them you don't have a camera...

Ok guys, the carpet will be cleaned on Monday, however the assessor states that the armchair is no repairable. Tesco have been on to me today stating that they will only issue a cheque in the name of a store of my choice to purchase a new chair. The chair is part of an expensive set if I get a new chair it will look daft sat next to older stuff. I don't have the money to put the extra to buy a new suite, the only way I can do it is for them to issue the cheque to me and then save up the extra to buy a new suite.

They are refusing to do this, stating that they will only issue a cheque to me after I've bought the furniture. Can they do this???? Help would be much appreciated.