Home Insurance Claim Help

lisyloo

[QUTOE]Wouldnt the proximate cause be the act of applying the substance in the first place, which is cleaning?[/QUOTE]

Yes, but it's out of the intended "wear and tear" context.
I can see that argument.

raskazz

FlameCloud wrote: »

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?

Not sure, I imagine we could go round in circles with this one. I don't think 'cleaning' in itself can be the proximate cause, as I don't think that you can hold 'cleaning' to be the root cause of a direct chain of causation that would inextricably lead to the damage (the OP's other half could well have started 'cleaning' it with the right product and avoided the damage).

IMO the proximate cause was the OP's other half making a mistake!

FlameCloud

lisyloo wrote: »

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

Yes, but it's out of the intended "wear and tear" context.
I can see that argument.[/quote]

But it is irrelvent- if there are a range of proximate causes and any one of them are excluded the insurer is entitled to avoid the claim.

I wouldnt agree that it is taken out of context either. The exclusion would have been put in there to stop people for claiming from worn out sofas etc that were 'damaged' whilst scrubbing it with something.

haggis38

Guys

What's an OP?

raskazz

haggis38 wrote: »

Guys

What's an OP?

Original poster (you!).

haggis38

Sorry as i said first timer on any forum.

I will write to them, I'm just puzzled with what constitutes a gen accident. If my 3 year old daughter had picked up the spray and aimed at the TV and sprayed would they have said it was ok. Or, because it was caused by a cleaning fluid it wouldn't have mattered who what or how it happened the fact the word "CLEANING" is involved it covers it. What's the point in having content and extended contents if they are not covered by a genuine accident.

FlameCloud

I wouldnt say that was cleaning at all and is completly different to you picking up a cloth and purposfully putting it on the tv to clean it.

I would however question why a 3 year old was left along to play with chemicals sufficiently powerful enough to damage a tv.

toffeeboy1

Right - I'll give you some insider information. The Ombudsman charges THE INSURER (not you, the customer) quite a few hundred pounds EVERY time a case is reported to them - whether or not they support your case.

Insurers do not like this one little bit, and are likely to settle your claim to prevent the Ombudsman getting involved.

A mate of mine lost a stone from her engagement ring. The insurer tried to say that it woujld have fallen out due to wear and tear and therefore wasn't covered. I advised her to THREATEN going to the Insurance Ombudsman (the address of which HAS to be provided in your policy booklet) and HEY PRESTO - she duly received a cheque in full and final settlement of her claim a few days later.

Your stance should be this - and I'm convinved you'll get your money... Ring Lloyds TSB (or better still the insurance company as Lloyds TSB are a broker - I think their policies might be underwritten by Norwich Union, but I'm guessing) - ask to speak to a claims manager. Explain that at the time you were sold the policy you were not advised of this significant exclusion, which you should have been. When they still refuse (which they will) they will log details of your complaint on their records.

THEN, in writing, threaten writing a letter of complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman... I'd have a bet you'd get your money.

Let me know how you get on!

mattymoo

What a load of crap Toffeeboy

1) Unless he sat down in a Lloyds TSB branch to buy the policy he was effectively his own advisor. Up to the customer to work out the exclusions and all providers make it possible to download the full wordings prior to sale.

2) By all means threaten away but if the exclusion is there in black and white, it is a fair declinature. Some insurers have the balls to stand up to ombudsman threats.

3) He would have to exhaust the inhouse complaints procedure and receive deadlock letter before FOS would get involved so its going to be a slow old process.

Raskazz may have a valid argument but I would hate to be the one to argue it. My own feeling is the exclusion is pretty clear cut but willing to be proved wrong on this.

Oscar_The_Grouch

Totally agree with mattymoo and flamecloud on this one. Toffeboy is talking from the wrong hole.

I have a case WITH the FOS at this time where the amount of the claim is less than the fee charged for the FOS referral. I expect to win the case too, as the insured does not have a leg to stand on from my point of view.

As a reasonable insurer, the company I work for is responsible for proving to the FSA that they treat their customers fairly. This does not mean bending over the table and shouting "roger me" every time someone threatens to take a case to the Financial Ombudsman. If I were to do that, I may as well pay every single claim referred to me that is for less than the FOS fee. That would result in bigger premiums for everyone.

Toffeeboy1, I actually LIKE the FOS; the adjudicators are extremely friendly and I have a very good working relationship with them. I keep them informed of what I am doing on cases and they know they can contact me if they have any questions about our policy wordings, terms and conditions. I also like the fact that there is a fee for every case that I let go to them (and all FOS cases go across my desk before they are submitted to the Ombudsman) as it means I only pay for the cases I know I am going to win (and I haven't lost an FOS case in 2 years).

Haggis38, your case is a lost cause. I would run this case as far as the Ombudsman if I were your insurer. The FOS are not bound by prevoius judgements, but I won a case similar to this in 2006.