Questions on insurance??

rhartley

....is a friend of mine made a claim recently for a video recorder (accidental damage) which cost £400 6 yrs ago, his claim was settled with a payout of £120 minus £50 excess leaving £80 for a £400 video recorder. The insurance company claims he can get one the same spec as his previous video but not the same make as before ie: a lower grade machine.

Presumably the insurer looked at the spec of the 6 year old unit and compared it to what was available now and found that it could be replaced with an equivalent for £120?

If so, that seems fair and reasonable.

moneysaver

Presumably the insurer looked at the spec of the 6 year old unit and compared it to what was available now and found that it could be replaced with an equivalent for £120?  

If so, that seems fair and reasonable.  

Does that mean that if you have a top of the range item eg. Video recorder & they replace it with one of the same spec but a cheaper make i.e. Bush. Is this acceptable?

I have a few high quality items & I would not like it replaced with lower end of the market stuff. That is why I bought it in the first place in order to get long life out of them plus good quality sound etc.

Moneysaver :-/

rhartley

Does that mean that if you have a top of the range item eg. Video recorder & they replace it with one of the same spec  but a cheaper make i.e. Bush. Is this acceptable?

I have a few high quality items & I would not like it replaced with lower end of the market stuff. That is why I bought it in the first place in order to get long life out of them plus good quality sound etc.

Moneysaver :-/

I fully understand the concerns but I doubt many insurers would expect to replace your Sony or H/K unit with an LG or a Bush. They will (or should) take into account the quality of the brand involved.

Most insurer's claims units have access to online pricing systems which consist of a database showing the current equivalents of now-obsolete gear.

If you bought a top of the range Sony VCR 5 or 6 years ago it would have cost several hundred pounds. Now the equivalent Sony unit (in fact one with even better features and quality) would be several hundred pounds cheaper. It's only fair that the insurer pays for the cost of an equivalent specification.

To give an example, let's say you lost or damaged a Fuji digital camera that you had bought for £500 in 1997. The camera was a "best buy" when purchased with (for its time) high quality images and 2.3 megapixel CCD. The insurer should not be expected to buy you another Fuji at the same price point because the equivalent spec camera would now be only £150-200.

It would be reasonable for the insurer to make a cash contribution towards a higher spec unit should you chose to upgrade. In practice, most insurers are quite happy to do this and will sometimes even procure the higher spec unit for you and pass on to you the discount they have negotiated from preferred suppliers.

ClaraC_2

I have just put a deposit on a car and have been offered GAP (Guaranteed Asset Protection) insurance at a cost of £233 for two years from the dealer. As I am under 25 and this is going to be my first car, I am already going to be paying over £500 for my insurance. My dealer tells me that if my car is written off within the next 2 years, the insurance company would only pay me the market value of the car at the time and that by having the GAP insurance, the dealer will pay the difference between the market value and the amount I am paying for the car.

Does anyone know anymore about this? And is it worth the money?

Thanks