Home Insurance Claim

[egbb]

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

[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

[Helford]

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

[gyzmo]

Oh isn't Mossy a little gem! I'm blushing now!

 

I understand that the FOS take each case on merits, though generally go along these lines:

 

Small matters. For example, a few tiles damaged. the insurer will not be expected to replace the whole lot

 

Usually, the insurer is expected to pay for the damaged item and to contribute 50% towards everything else, unless....

 

the matching is intrinsic to the value of the items, in which case the insurer is expected to pay for the whole lot.

 

I cannot remember whether it will be 50% or the whole amount in cases like this. I think it is the cost of a full replacement, but I would contact the FOS for advice. Though their advice is not binding and should not be used as an indicator of how they would judge a complaint, they are usually on the ball with these matters.

 

Ps - I think Mossy is better than I am on these matters, but there you go!

[LemonTwist]

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.

[Mossycat]

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

[gyzmo]

The insurance market seems to be made to move away from this matching sets business not being replaced. As I said, before, there are various times when, even despite policy wording, the FOS will require an insurer to pay for matching items.

 

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.

[Mossycat]

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

[egbb]

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.

[egbb]

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.

[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?

[gyzmo]

That's pretty normal - don't worry. All they are doing is checking you are not telling porky pies. Be honest about it all and do not lie - the following explains - it is a copy from the FOS bulletins and case studies.

 

About half way down - ther are case studies on matching sets. The top one of these involves potential fraud.

household disasters - October

 

 

 

The following link contains two case studies (the top two) relating to matching replacements.

complaints involving household contents insurance

[egbb]

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.

[djmetsandy]

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?

[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?

[Mossycat]

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

[MASRSTER09]

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?

T:-xTHE 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

[gyzmo]

Whoa!

a. Start your own thread

b. Read what has been said already about matching items, particularly the links I posted which are from the FOS.

c. Post your replies on the own thread you started from a.

[djmetsandy]

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...

[egbb]

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.

[Wulfyn]

Sadly "looking daft" has no intrinsic value/loss associated with it - in the same way that personal photographs have no additional value due to sentimentality.

 

 

The exact law on putting you back in the same condition only applies when the pair/set/suite had an additional value due to being a pair/set/suit. So if you had 2 antique vases worth £500 each, or £2000 as a pair, then the loss of one puts you £1500 out of pocket, not the £500 that the one vase is worth. In the case of furniture it is almost always the case that a sofa of £500 and a matching chair of £200 will be worth £700 as a suite (and often bought for less). Because of this, no matter how daft it might look the insurance company need only replace the £200 chair.

 

 

Be very very very careful about asking for cash over a replacement. If Tesco gets a discount from the places you have to buy a replacement from (say 25%) then they can issue you a cheque to cover your chair (say £200) at the price it would cost them (ie £150). So you get your £200 replacement, but it only costs Tesco £150 because of the disount. Now if you waive the replacement and ask for cash they only have to provide you with what they would have to pay - ie £150. So asking for cash could put you even further out of pocket.

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news

[egbb]

Problem is the suite is no longer manufactured therefore I would have to get a completely different chair that would not match the existing furniture in any way shape or form. Hence my requirement to purchase a whole new suite of furniture, not having the money to do so means that tesco insisting on giving me a cheque payable to the furniture company of my choice is of no use to me as I won't have the money for at least 4 months to purchase a new suite of furniture and therefore couldn't say who the cheque should be made payable to.

[djmetsandy]

Why not ask Tesco if they can hold the cheque until your ready?

[tintin2]

im having similar trouble with mma insurance regarding damage to me handmade fitting kitchen and marble tiles they will only pay for the parts that are damaged surely this isnt fair? any advise please

[marshallka]

I have this in my policy with Direct Line

 

4 We will not repair or replace undamaged items which are part of

a set or suite unless they are part of a bathroom suite or fitted

kitchen and the damaged parts cannot be repaired or an exact

replacement found.

 

BUT still having problems with my obsolete bathroom replacement. THEY TOLD ME who would contact me about my toilet and I was called by their right hand man who runs an obsolete bathroom place. He told me that my policy entitled me to an exact colour replacement only and the fitting at the bottom may be different (as different toilets are) so that if I had to replace the floor (maybe digging into the concrete as its an old s trap fitting) that was my look out. I then called direct line back and was also told the same that exact match actually meant like for like or just colour (where a bathroom was concerned). My bath is also damaged and I told them that and they have now put it as a different claim as I told them about it. I only mentioned it cause I was just making an example that I would not have claimed for "just" the bath that has two chips in the bottom UNLESS the toilet had not been cracked but they said that this would be another claim and also another excess. I then said that as they could not find an exact toilet match (or bath as the bath is definately obsolete - we found it out 15 years previous but have recently found out that if was cast iron and imported from Holland and not been on sale for the last 50 years!!) we should be, as the policy entitles us to, a complete suite replacement. They have said not but I have a loss adjuster coming out on Tuesday. I was told by TWO direct line advisors that a like for like could be found and anything that I have to do is called consequnetial damage??? If the toilet is a different shape its fine but the colour will match. If I have to dig into the contrete and get the s trap re positioned that is my look out. I thought exact meant just that, exact???