Home Insurance Claim Help

haggis38

Guys

I'm totally lost now.

Thanks

*MF*

haggis38 wrote: »

Guys

I'm totally lost now.

Thanks

You have been witness to a debate by members (nearly) all of whom have detailed experience in the insurance industry.

Up to you - but if you want to proceed with a claim - follow the guidelines and specific argument given to you by raskazz, but be aware that others feel that your chances of a successful claim are limited, perhaps very limited.

.

raskazz

haggis38 wrote: »

Guys

I'm totally lost now.

Thanks

You need not be lost. If you're not happy with the rejection of the claim then just use the insurer's complaints procedure. Don't even concern yourself with the FOS until the insurer has given you its final decision on your complaint.

In terms of what others have been discussing, I agree wholeheartedly that the FOS should not be used as a threat by policyholders in an attempt to steamroller their complaints through. Thankfully there has been a noticeable hardening of many insurers' stances on actual or potential FOS complaints, in that they will no longer be cowed into backing down.

Despite the adage, in my experience in most cases of insurance complaints the customer is not right, however I do have sympathy for the OP's case. It is abundantly clear to my mind that when the insurer drafted this 'wear and tear' exclusion, the intention was not to exclude this type of scenario, only to exclude gradually operating perils. To now rely on it to reject this claim seems to hark back to the 'bad old days' when insurers would repudiate claims on the grounds of the most innocuous breach or ambiguous exclusion. IMO the insurer should settle the OP's claim if it is otherwise valid and then take the opportunity to tighten their policy wording to avoid such disputes recurring in the future.

mattymoo

Right - just had a look at Lloyds TSB and my own policy - a Hiscox 505 (the insurance bods will know that name).

Firstly, it's got to be said the Lloyds TSB site is pretty naff. You do not have the option to view the policy docs until you have gone through the quote process. Complies with the rules but I do prefer to read first before wasting time doing the quote bit.

Cleaning is definately listed under "wear and tear" and the phrase "other gradually operating causes" at the end gives support to Raskazz's argument.

My Hiscox policy under contents - what is not covered is quite clear
"We do not cover any of the following
Loss or damage caused by
...
..
c) cleaning, repair, renovation, restoration, or any similar process;"

What I suspect has happened is this.
Lloyds TSB represent 11 insurers including Sterling, Axa, Allianz etc. but the policy wording appears to be a generic Lloyds TSB document. Nothing unusual about that but I suspect somebody has poorly drafted the wording when copying across in order to define the cover provided by the insurers.

Like I said, a difficult argument and one that gets into legal complexities such as contract interpretation. I used to deal with EL litigation and was more used to the Golden Rule, Literal rule and Mischief rule to interpret employment law for employers liability claims. Not sure how it works with contract drafting though.

jeppy

The policy excludes damage caused by cleaning. I had a similar problem with a carpet years ago. If you had tripped and spilt the fluid on the TV that would be an accident and covered.

Personally, I would check to see whether the product is meant for TVs and if so claim from them under their products liability insurance.

*MF*

Before making my main comment - I want to repeat for the benefit of the OP - that raskazz has developed an argument which is imo tenable - specifically over the "intention" behind the exclusion -v- its catch all usage which was not perhaps the intention - bad drafting of that kind has in my experience always been kicked back by the Courts in the past and by the FOS more recently - and believe it is worthwhile the OP pursuing on that basis - all said because I don't want the OP to feel even more that there is no avenue to pursue.

Main point however:

jeppy wrote: »

The policy excludes damage caused by cleaning. I had a similar problem with a carpet years ago. If you had tripped and spilt the fluid on the TV that would be an accident and covered.

Personally, I would check to see whether the product is meant for TVs and if so claim from them under their products liability insurance.

*MF* wrote:

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.

I still base my thoughts on my earlier comments - and followed them thru' - off forum - to see where it led me. The guidance for the cleaning of plasma screens ( which I think would be in the handbook) is quite clear - be very careful not only on the substances used (in fact don't use any in most guidance notes) but also be very careful over the physical material used eg, don't use kitchen roll or toilet paper as they are likely to be wood based and will scratch the surface.

More specifically it advises against using any substance containing ammonia because it will destroy the anti-glare membrane on a plasma tv (which I guess is what happened here).

Mr Muscle can be bought - with ammonia as an ingredient, and without ammonia - so I would guess the manufacturer could defend on at least two counts - what was bought (my guess one with ammonia or the like) and what the plasma TV guide stated - don't use cleaning agents - particularly ammonia based.

My hope is that using raskazz' argument the OP may get somewhere - and not come across someone like me developing a secondary defence to the claim - the one I started with and stick to.

Sorry OP - like others I can't be positive about your chances in all of this.

oomyekim

Sorry to bump this after so long but Lloyds TSB do actuall underwrite their own policies. Their Home Solutions & Home Options policies are underwritten by Lloyds TSB General Insurance Ltd...However they do act as middleman for various other companies....