Great 'How to ensure your insurer pays claims' Hunt: How to assure a payout

dinesh17

Cromwell405a wrote: »

Just to comment on this in insurance law if a term is vague or ill-defined the judgement will generally come down on the side of the person who didn't write the contract (in at least 99.9% of cases the policy holder).

Also there is talk about the insurance policies being clearer, "clear" is very ill-defined, what one person sees as a clear term will seem confusing to another and vice versa. Insurers write the policy wording as an offer of contract for the policy holder to sign, generally I would view reading a contract a pretty important thing to do before you sign it.

Yes I agree with this, but when you read the wording when you take out the contract it all seems fine and you think that most things will be covered. However, when it comes to claiming the insurer will take the alternative interpretation of the wording (ie, the one that suits them). No layperson would have the foresight to know this, unless they were a lawyer. It's only when you claim, you find out how they operate.

dinesh17

:mad:

Little_Yellow_Dog wrote: »

I had a simiilar experience as dinesh17 over a claim after minor fire damage at my property. I have had a constant battle with the insurers since the incident at the beginning of May and it is still continuing now. Independent Inspections Ltd were sent out to value the various damaged items and they have repeatedly attempted to down value everything. They clearly made no attempt to find the true value of the items even though I provided the original letter showing the original purchase of the item, but they used a considerably cheaper item to compare it to, which is totally inaccurate. I have had to argue with them about all of their decisions and had to provide evidence to back up my opinion, which has been extremely time consuming.

The job of the Independent Inspections Ltd is clearly not 'independent' and rather than getting accurate comparables for the true value of the items, they try to minimise the cost to them and the insurance companies. It is also clear that they have done deals with various retailers to provide replacement items in which they have negotiated discounts - showing again their lack of 'independence'. Unfortunately it is down to the claimant to prove the true value of their items and fight their corner.

I had to do a similar thing - which is why I recommend getting a breakdown of the settlement offered so that you can query the cost of each item - eg if they are only giving you half the value of your carpet. Also watch out for them missing things out - in my example the cost of repairing a 1m hole in the ceiling was missed out and also they claimed to be able to repair wooden kitchen cabinets which were badly damaged by water. Ridiculous to say the least.

It's obvious the loss adjustors are on the insurer's side (think who is paying them!) so the earlier poster's advice of hiring your own LA who knows the game is probably money well spent. I've spent over a year fighting my insurer and the amount of phone calls, time off work and letters written have taken their toll on me!

Marg

I have just made a claim for damage caused by an electrical fault and am already rather sceptical about the intentions of the insurance company and the various inspectors they are sending to assess the damage. I have absolutely nothing to hide but feel uncomfortable because I believe the inspectors are going to try to find some reason not to pay up. I know there are dodgy people out there with false claims and the inspectors have a job to do but apart from the initial phone call the process of claiming is not pleasant.

I am also wary of the inspectors who call with brochures for the people who will 'put it all right for us' - are they on commission? How do we know they will do a good job?

Any advice anyone?

Cromwell405a

dinesh17 wrote: »

Yes I agree with this, but when you read the wording when you take out the contract it all seems fine and you think that most things will be covered. However, when it comes to claiming the insurer will take the alternative interpretation of the wording (ie, the one that suits them). No layperson would have the foresight to know this, unless they were a lawyer. It's only when you claim, you find out how they operate.

Yeah, but similarly their interpretation needs to be defined in the policy wording otherwise a court would generally side with the insured's interpretation (providing it is reasonable).

Cromwell405a

Marg wrote: »

I am also wary of the inspectors who call with brochures for the people who will 'put it all right for us' - are they on commission? How do we know they will do a good job?

They may well be on some sort of commission, a lot of insurers come to these commercial arrangements in order to keep their claims costs down. It's the same reason that you get vouchers when an electrical item is damaged, they will have some sort of overrider discount from a provider and prevents some of the banking costs. These reduced claims payments allow insurers to charge cheaper premiums, hence grabbing up market share and making more profit (because that's what businesses do).

dinesh17

Cromwell405a wrote: »

Yeah, but similarly their interpretation needs to be defined in the policy wording otherwise a court would generally side with the insured's interpretation (providing it is reasonable).

agreed, but how many people are going to take the matter to court - very few. which is what the insurer is banking on

dacouch

A very good way to ensure your claim gets paid is not to go with a rubbish insurance company. People need to get away from buying on price alone and take into account the quality of service, claims service, the cover and the price as a whole.

The other sensible thing is to read the policy so you understand what you are and more importantly are not covered for. Luckily most MSE members are savvy enough to read their documents but the vast majoirty of people just click and buy the cheapest and do not read the policy wording.

With regard to Poets incident, you probably received more by claiming through your Home Insurer than you would have got from your Travel Insurer anyway. This is because the travel insurer will deduct for "wear and tear" (The home insurer will not), the travel insurer will insist on receipts / proof of ownership and they have very low limits for valuables eg cameras etc

poet123

dacouch wrote: »

A very good way to ensure your claim gets paid is not to go with a rubbish insurance company. People need to get away from buying on price alone and take into account the quality of service, claims service, the cover and the price as a whole.

The other sensible thing is to read the policy so you understand what you are and more importantly are not covered for. Luckily most MSE members are savvy enough to read their documents but the vast majoirty of people just click and buy the cheapest and do not read the policy wording.

With regard to Poets incident, you probably received more by claiming through your Home Insurer than you would have got from your Travel Insurer anyway. This is because the travel insurer will deduct for "wear and tear" (The home insurer will not), the travel insurer will insist on receipts / proof of ownership a.nd they have very low limits for valuables eg cameras etc

Yes, you are correct there, but our eldest son had a "stand alone" policy in addition to the family policy and he got almost nothing via the travel insurance. The home insurance company (Fortis) were excellent, very professional, quick and fair

dacouch

Your son would get almost nothing from the Travel Insurer as they all have an exclusion for items in an unattended car unless the items are locked in the glove compartment or a locked and concealed boot. Even then the wear and tear deduction would apply and the low limits on valuable items.

Your lucky Fortis paid as most home insurers only pay for items locked in the boot or glove compartment

Katie-Kat-Kins

Cromwell405a wrote: »

Yeah, but similarly their interpretation needs to be defined in the policy wording otherwise a court would generally side with the insured's interpretation (providing it is reasonable).

And most insurers wouldn't wish to incur the cost of a risky court battle or ensuing bad publicity. As I say I see lots of cases where claims are paid that "could" have been avoided. It is cheaper to pay a slightly questionable claim than to fight it and risk loosing, because then they have to pay legal costs (which the insured will undoubtably be covered for via a no-win no fee agreement).