insurance company taking the mickey

lisyloo

I agree with raskazz here.
If it's not difficult to re-produce and you have a camera, computer and someone to take the photos then surely it would just be simplest to just do it.

By all means re-consider your insurance decision prior to renewal.

cogito

To this particular impartial observer, I see nothing to indicate that cyclonercv has got anything to hide. The post simply reflects some bewilderment at being asked to do something that doesn't make much sense to him/her.

To this particular impartial observer, it looks like it's the insurer that is asking the wrong questions. Nevertheless, I dare say that cyclonercv will have to go along with it and then, after wasting everyone's time, including their own, the insurers will pay up. Great way to do business but, what the hell, it's only a customer. They've got plenty more.

Daytona_nev

cyclonercv wrote: »

Hi all I have just made a claim for accidental damage to a TV and the insurance company are asking for a photographic reconstruction of me posing for a series of still shots showing how the damage was caused are they taking the Mickey or have I got it wrong and this is normal
Cheers

Seems ludicrous to me. So if you dropped it carrying it down the stairs whilst falling would they expect to throw yourself down the stairs whilst your partner takes the photos.

Take your reconstruction photos in the nude and insist that's exactly how you were when the accident happened.

raskazz

cogito wrote: »

To this particular impartial observer, I see nothing to indicate that cyclonercv has got anything to hide. The post simply reflects some bewilderment at being asked to do something that doesn't make much sense to him/her.

I don't agree. I think most people would have just taken a couple of photos rather than spending a much longer period writing messages about not taking a couple of photos.

cogito wrote: »

To this particular impartial observer, it looks like it's the insurer that is asking the wrong questions.

How on Earth have you come to that conclusion when we have (a) very limited information and (b) only one 'side of the story' as it were? Nobody apart from the insured knows what happened. the insurer is taking steps to verify what happened. Entirely sensible, and as I have pointed out, it's much more efficient than reading pages of text by way of explanation.

cogito wrote: »

Nevertheless, I dare say that cyclonercv will have to go along with it and then, after wasting everyone's time, including their own, the insurers will pay up. Great way to do business but, what the hell, it's only a customer. They've got plenty more.

So the insurer has wasted their own time by implementing a sensible and proven anti-fraud technique? I don't think so. I welcome vigilant insurers because on industry estimates 5% of my premium for all types of general insurance goes towards covering fraudulent claims. I might be wrong, but it is my opinion that any genuine claimant would have no issue with spending five minutes taking a few photos to support their claim. After all, it is up to the insured to prove the loss, not the insurer to disprove it.

raskazz

Daytona_nev wrote: »

Seems ludicrous to me. So if you dropped it carrying it down the stairs whilst falling would they expect to throw yourself down the stairs whilst your partner takes the photos.

I think we can safely assume that if the claimant told the insurer that the loss occurred in the way that you describe then they would not ask for reconstructive photos.

cogito

on industry estimates 5% of my premium for all types of general insurance goes towards covering fraudulent claims.

Matter of interest, how do they arrive at this figure?

raskazz

cogito wrote: »

Matter of interest, how do they arrive at this figure?

The ABI don't publish the method of calculation, presumably as it would only interest a minority of nerds like me, but I imagine that fundamentally data is collected from insurers by the Association of British Insurers. Insurers will obviously each collect their own data in terms of fraudulent claim numbers and costs to monitor how fraud affects them individually and to help them minimise it. Of course claims that are simply withdrawn will not be assumed to be fraudulent. Claims that are rejected as proven fraud or claims where the insurer simply tells the insured that they know that the claim is fraudulent and offers them a withdrawal which is accepted will be classed as fraudulent claims. Even though these claims are not paid, it still costs the insurer a lot in investigating them. There will also naturally be some element of claims that are paid that are fraudulent but the insurer never discovers it, these will naturally be harder to account for. Then it is simply a matter of aggregating the data across the various sectors of the market. There are also anti-fraud bodies such as the Insurance Fraud Investigators Group and the Insurance Fraud Bureau that may be a useful source of data.

cyclonercv

I do have the receipt for the TV so how can I benefit in any way when I just want an exact replacement am just trying to find out people’s opinions on this and if they think its reasonable after all were does it stop will they be asking for a video film of what happened next and would you still say that’s a reasonable request, it’s the old chestnut he must have something to hide because he doesn’t want to go along with a stupid re enactment of a accident, I wouldn’t even know where to begin with trying to photograph what happened and who gets to see all the photos round the office and probably have a good laugh at them

raskazz

cyclonercv wrote: »

I wouldn’t even know where to begin with trying to photograph what happened and who gets to see all the photos round the office and probably have a good laugh at them

Why not call the insurer to ask them exactly what they need then instead of wasting time posting more messages here? Here's a fairly commonsense tip: Start by photographing the room that the accident happened in, with all the contents placed as they were at the time of the accident.

Daytona_nev

raskazz wrote: »

I think we can safely assume that if the claimant told the insurer that the loss occurred in the way that you describe then they would not ask for reconstructive photos.

The question was rhetorical ! clearly!

How people get wrapped up in their own pedantry.