Accidental Damage Cover

iamana1ias

Hamza wrote: »

Thank you all for your comments. I shall waite until I receive that letter and I'll take it from there. I'll let you know the outcome. Hopefully it should be straight forward (says optimistically).

PS. Flamecloud, I am a he not a she. lol.

Of course you are. A woman would have read the manual first (and known where the plastic scraper was );)

FlameCloud

Quote wrote: »

1. You're being very sexist/presumptuous to think that the OP is a woman.
2. The common sense I was referring to was the method adopted to free the frozen item. By your rationale they could have used a drill and that would be "okay".

It really bugs me when people accuse insurers of being crooks when they themselves have acted like numpties.

1. Yup, shoot me.
2. Not really. The law is very clear on what insurers can and cannot do with reasonable care clauses and on this they could not decline a claim.

If insurers really could decline claims for people acting like numpties then they really would make billions. The majority of claims I deal with I often sit there thinking that the claimant is an idiot, but the claim is still covered.

placido

Quote wrote: »

The common sense I was referring to was the method adopted to free the frozen item. By your rationale they could have used a drill and that would be "okay".

It really bugs me when people accuse insurers of being crooks when they themselves have acted like numpties.

When I was a lad working as a steward on board ships we used to de-ice the freezers using hammers and chisel.

When I later got married and was given the job of de-icing the domestic freezer (sexist cow) I approached the job in the manner accustomed.

Of course the home freezer was not quite as up to it as the heavy duty sea-going freezers and a pipe quickly fractured and the freezer died.

We got a nice friendly repair man out who said it could not possibly have been intentional damage (it wasn't really. I was just a SUPER NUMPTY).

As I recall he replaced the danaged pipe: the whole thing ended very amicably and the repair man got a nice tip.

Quote

Fair enough. I just wish people wouldn't publicise their acts of idiocy so frequently.

placido

Quote wrote: »

Fair enough. I just wish people wouldn't publicise their acts of idiocy so frequently.

I think we need to lighten up just a little.

Hamza

Quote wrote: »

Fair enough. I just wish people wouldn't publicise their acts of idiocy so frequently.

Hello to you too 'Quote'. First of all I'd like to thank you for your helpful and positive comments! and secondly I'd like to welcome you to "numpty land".

Your obviously not familiar with the term 'Accidental Damage', this is what would otherwise in your narrow vocabulary and understanding be called "NUMPTY DAMAGE". You see in "numpty land" insurers provide cover for "numpties" when they have committed acts of "idiocy". Next time you get into an accident in your car (god forbid) and it was your fault, don't ring the insurance company, you might be sent to prison on account of "numptiness" or if you trip and fall and break your leg (again god forbid), don't call your personal insurer you might get locked in a "numpty" assylum.

If you have read understood this text, then I congratulate you, as you are now officially a "NUMPTY".

gordikin

Hamza wrote: »

Hello to you too 'Quote'. First of all I'd like to thank you for your helpful and positive comments! and secondly I'd like to welcome you to "numpty land".

Your obviously not familiar with the term 'Accidental Damage', this is what would otherwise in your narrow vocabulary and understanding be called "NUMPTY DAMAGE". You see in "numpty land" insurers provide cover for "numpties" when they have committed acts of "idiocy". Next time you get into an accident in your car (god forbid) and it was your fault, don't ring the insurance company, you might be sent to prison on account of "numptiness" or if you trip and fall and break your leg (again god forbid), don't call your personal insurer you might get locked in a "numpty" assylum.

If you have read understood this text, then I congratulate you, as you are now officially a "NUMPTY".

Taking a metal implement and using it on your freezer wasn't accidental...it was a deliberate act. If you had used a blunt knife to scrape off some gunk from the screen a 42" plasma TV that a child had made a mess of would you expect a payout from you insurance co. if you damaged it?

geri1965_2

gordikin wrote: »

Taking a metal implement and using it on your freezer wasn't accidental...it was a deliberate act.

But the damage is accidental.

The OP did not set out to deliberately damage his own freezer.

stevemarsh1976

geri1965 wrote: »

But the damage is accidental.

The OP did not set out to deliberately damage his own freezer.

But he was negligent in not following the guidelines in the manual. The only grey area is the knife used be classed as a sharp object.

I would continue to pursue it but I wouldnt be surprised if it failed. On another note have you priced up a new freezer would it not be cost effective to replace it once youve paid the excess and seen an increase in your home insurance it may not be worth even claiming ?

Insco

stevemarsh1976 wrote: »

But he was negligent in not following the guidelines in the manual. The only grey area is the knife used be classed as a sharp object.

I would continue to pursue it but I wouldnt be surprised if it failed. On another note have you priced up a new freezer would it not be cost effective to replace it once youve paid the excess and seen an increase in your home insurance it may not be worth even claiming ?

But he was not reckless, which is the applicable test. The claim should succeed. However with any excess and the likely increase in premium, I conpletely concur that to pursue the claim may not be cost effective.