accidental damage insurance won't pay
Comments
-
Gloss is known as a paint that is hard to remove and causes items to immediately require replacement rather than cleaning which would be the first avenue for insurers.
Most insurers will consider any claim where both contents and buildings are involved over a number of items that are due for redecoration or replacement in the course of normal household updating as worth investigation.
Due to this I do believe the dust sheets/reasonable care was added to policies to protect from individuals using gloss or similar from being used in an attempt to gain the most out of one claim.Please note I have a cognitive disability - as such my wording can be a bit off, muddled, misspelt or in some cases i can miss out some words totally...0 -
Absolutely wrote: »The older I get, the less insurance I take out. It's practically worthless. Save the money up instead and use it in case some such calamity occurs.
Brilliant advice......providing your crystal ball is working and providing that your household buildings/contents have little value.
Otherwise, ignore this advice, unless you have very deep pockets and are prepared to use it.
DM0 -
I (and I suspect it’s what Absolutely meant) go for insurance I’m obliged to have and for those things I couldn’t self insure.
Car third party is legally needed and although I could self insure on the damage to my own car side it’s actually cheaper to get a policy that covers that than it is to get one that just covers third party.
I couldn’t sensibly rebuild my house or replace all the contents if I had a fire so I insure that too.
Would I claim for the odd paint scrape on the car or a broken TV, paint splashed carpet etc? Nah, and where ever possible I set my excess to reflect that. If I make a claim it will be for a written off car or destroyed house.
Would I even consider taking out a policy to cover boiler/fridge/TV/pipes etc? Not in a million years, that sort of thing is certainly better being self insured and the number of people trying to sell these sorts of policies is a good indication of how profitable they are and why they are a bad idea from the MSE point of view.0 -
I (and I suspect it’s what Absolutely meant) go for insurance I’m obliged to have and for those things I couldn’t self insure.
Car third party is legally needed and although I could self insure on the damage to my own car side it’s actually cheaper to get a policy that covers that than it is to get one that just covers third party.
I couldn’t sensibly rebuild my house or replace all the contents if I had a fire so I insure that too.
Would I claim for the odd paint scrape on the car or a broken TV, paint splashed carpet etc? Nah, and where ever possible I set my excess to reflect that. If I make a claim it will be for a written off car or destroyed house.
Would I even consider taking out a policy to cover boiler/fridge/TV/pipes etc? Not in a million years, that sort of thing is certainly better being self insured and the number of people trying to sell these sorts of policies is a good indication of how profitable they are and why they are a bad idea from the MSE point of view.
That wasnt how I interpreted Absolutely 's post.
I can 100% see your point regarding the boiler/fridge etc
DM0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards