Home Insurance Claim Help

haggis38

Hi
First timer here, I have just called my home insurance provider to Lloyds TSB to make a claim for accidental damage - my husband decided to clean the plasma screen with Mr Muscle glass cleaner! the screen is ruined. I have just been advised by clerk that although I am covered for accidental damage, it does not include when the incorrect cleaning agent has been used. This was an accident, yes a product was used which caused the damage but a genuine stupid mistake. I then asked does that mean if a product is used to clean my floor and leaves a mark does this mean that my floor is not covered too which he also answered yes. What defines an accident? should I have lied and said that my husband tripped and spilt the product on the screen then it would have worked? Some help or advice would be much appreciated.
:mad:

raskazz

Doesn't sound quite right to me. It would help if we could know who underwrites your policy (Lloyds TSB are an intermediary) and see the actual policy wording. In the absence of that, all I can recommend is to ask them which specific clause or exception they are relying upon to reject the claim.

*MF*

Hi ... not in anyway wanting to interfere in what raskazz has already said, ok - but can I ask is there anything on the Mr Muscle Glass cleaner can which warns against its uses - specifically in this case about plasma screens or the like?

What I suspect may lie behind this is - is a condition, common in insurance, to take "reasonable care" to avoid a claim - and what it says you can use the glass cleaner for and what it shouldn't be used for may therefore play a part in the Insurer's reaction. Same might also be true about what the plasma TV book says about what should or should not be used for cleaning it.

Sorry if that all sounds on the downbeat side - but trying to assist by pointing out where the Insurers may be coming from.

To balance that, if you cannot get agreement from the Insurers you can refer to the Financial Ombudsman - I have included a link to their site below - and at the very foot of that page is a claim where the FOS dealt with what is "reasonable care" as opposed to being "reckless".

Extract and link here:

The insurer rejected his claim, on the ground that he had not complied with the policy condition to take reasonable steps to prevent damage. It considered he was negligent because he had not covered the sofa before starting to paint.

However, after Mr M explained that he had not been redecorating – only touching up some marks on the wall, the insurer made an offer of £600 towards the cost of replacing the three-piece suite. Mr M refused this offer and referred the complaint to us.

complaint upheld

To prove the alleged lack of reasonable care, the insurer had to show that Mr M had been reckless. That meant proving that he had recognised there was a risk of damage but had failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent it.

There was no indication that Mr M had been reckless and we considered the insurer should meet the cost of replacing the damaged sofa. If the sofa could no longer be replaced, then the insurer should also pay 50% towards the cost of replacing the other matching parts of the suite.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/10/oct-houshold-disasters.htm

haggis38

I was told that it was on page 16 of thier policy booklet under general exceptions this is it below:-
"wear & tear"

Any loss or damage caused by wear and tear,
gradual deterioration, depreciation, cleaning,
restoring, reproofing, light, atmosphere, parasites,
vermin, insects, moths, mould, fungus or any

other gradually operating cause.

Does that mean that any accidental damage can fall under wear & tear?

thanks

lisyloo

Does that mean that any accidental damage can fall under wear & tear?

No it doesn't.

For example dropping it or dropping something (vase?) onto it, would not be wear & tear.

Although I agree and sumpathise with the number of strings attached.

mattymoo

From personal experience the word "cleaning" has crept into exclusion lists in the last 2-3 years. More Than certainly have it on their policies.

Wear and tear is also an exclusion so not covered either.

A lot of people confuse "Accidental Damage" with "All Risks Cover" and the terms are often wrongly interchanged. They are not the same.

Sorry, but in this instance the loss does not appear to be covered.

haggis38

I have spoken to them again and asked them to reconfirm. Basically they are saying although cleaning is not wear & tear it has been included under this heading in thier policy along with other things like insects, vermin etc, it comes under the overall heading "General exceptions" so it dosent matter.

raskazz

I still think it's worth pursuing this one. Taking a purposive approach to interpreting that particular general exclusion it's clear that it was included to exclude cover for gradually occurring risks, not to exclude all risks associated with cleaning. For example, would they rely on this clause to exclude accidental damage caused by, say, the insured falling off a ladder whilst dusting cobwebs and falling on the TV?

The damage in this case was not caused by cleaning, it was caused by the accidental use of an inappropriate product.

haggis38

Your positive approach is making me feel slightly better. What do you think is the next step then. Sorry to appear dumb.

raskazz

Personally I would raise a complaint in writing, it usually gets better results than dealing with insurers over the phone. I would basically write what I did in my last post, and just explain that you feel they are acting unreasonably in relying on such an exclusion to avoid the claim. Here's what Lloyds TSB say about making a complaint:

"We will always make every effort to meet the high standards we have set, but if you ever feel we have fallen short of what you expect then please contact us first at the address shown on your policy schedule, or call our customer services team on 0800 092 8762.

If this does not resolve matters for you, then please write to the Managing Director, Lloyds TSB Insurance, Tredegar Park, Newport, South Wales NP10 8SB.

If you are still not satisfied, you may refer this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The FOS can be contacted on 0845 080 1800 or at Insurance Division, Financial Ombudsman Service, South Quay Plaza, 183 Marsh Wall, London E14 9SR.

If you do take these actions, this will not affect your legal rights."

FlameCloud

raskazz wrote: »

I still think it's worth pursuing this one. Taking a purposive approach to interpreting that particular general exclusion it's clear that it was included to exclude cover for gradually occurring risks, not to exclude all risks associated with cleaning. For example, would they rely on this clause to exclude accidental damage caused by, say, the insured falling off a ladder whilst dusting cobwebs and falling on the TV?

The damage in this case was not caused by cleaning, it was caused by the accidental use of an inappropriate product.

I'll stick up for LTSB on this one- I think they are right to decline it, even if the policy wasnt written specifically to do it.

Wouldnt the proximate cause be the act of applying the substance in the first place, which is cleaning?