Is the insurance company right in this instance?

mikey72

Are you paying any more monthly now, for whatever contract or contracts you have, than you were before? Or less even?

kingstreet

bingbong has a point.

Without the theft, two contracts would have got you two phones. You only have one. The principle of indemnity states that you be returned to the position you were in before the event occurred.

TBH you jumping the gun and agreeing to a new phone and new contract before they settled has left you in the mire.

If you'd simply paid the market rate for a replacement for the stolen item and provided evidence, I don't see how or why they wouldn't have settled.

Now, you're effectively asking them to reimburse you for accepting another minimum payment period in lieu of the differential cost of the new phone.

I'm not sure what your chances are, but I'd write to them explaining how you feel about the situation and see what they offer, if anything.

DayDreamJay

Ok, so if I had bought a car on finance which got stolen and then I bought another on finance would the insurance company not pay up?

lisyloo

They would pay out the value of the car (to someone).

But this scenario is not an exact analogy.
We all know that phone companies subsidise the price of the phone as it's common sense, but there is nothing in your contract that says £X per month is to cover the cost of the phone is there?

I can see you point.
Have you tried explaning it to someone in customer relations (not just a call center operator).
You may need to write a letter, possibly a complaint.