Home Insurance - definitions.

iamana1ias

lisyloo wrote: »

Elsewhere it say they do, so am I right in thinking they just don't cover it under the "high risk items" category but do under another category (if you have of course purchased the correct option).

Where does it say they do?! They define it but no mention is made of covering it!

kenh11

Right, in brief, the schedule is as follows:

Reason for issue etc.

Your premium - cover costs, premiums etc.

Policy Endorsements - No claims etc.

Property info, buildings, address etc.

Excess - subsidence, landslip etc.

Endorsements - none.

Contents, and limits:
Cover
Basis of settlement
Total general contents, excluding specified valuable articles
Amount of valuables within total general contents
Single valuable article
Money
Unauthorised use of credit cards
Theft of contents from garages and outbuildings
No Claims discount

Specified valuable articles - none

Excess amounts

Endorsements

Liability - employers, public, pollution, tenants.

Legal expenses.

kenh11

Anybody with any further insight into the Schedule?

2sides2everystory

Does it not mention the Jewellery Section under the Schedule kenh11?

There is a definition in this policy of VALUABLES which DOES include JEWELLERY, but this NFU policy clearly seems to need the Jewellery Section to be switched on by a reference in the schedule.

It is quite a difficult wording even for an ex insurance person like me to get their head around - if it was easier i am sure lisyloo or someone current like that would have cracked it by now

I am slightly worried now that Jewellery Section isn't mentioned on the schedule.

Do notice that the PDF page numbers do not correspond with the actual printed page numbers. When you said page 8 you meant PDF page 8, printed page 6 I think. When I said start reading about Jewellery on page 56 that is PDF page 58.


"Specified Valuable Articles None" is a bit of a downer because that means your parents haven't listed any special items on their own. So it will be the "Unspecified Valuables" limit in the schedule that we are looking for. But seems there isn't one ... ah no sorry there is ... that's the "Amount of valuables within total general contents"

So what is that limit ken?

That still leaves the question of whether the Jewellery Section is operative or not by default I think but one thing at a time. What's the limit I've bolded? Then you are also restricted per item by the Single valuable article limit whatever that is too.

kenh11

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Does it not mention the Jewellery Section under the Schedule kenh11?

No, in the schedule the only point it mentions jewellery is at the end, where it states "covers not included, also available on this policy", a few things are listed and it states "jewellery - with contents plus only".

There is a definition in this policy of VALUABLES which DOES include JEWELLERY, but this NFU policy clearly seems to need the Jewellery Section to be switched on by a reference in the schedule.

Thats whats throwing me, a section saying what is covered includes jewellery in the list. Then further on it states it is NOT covered? However in the actual policy listing of what you are and are not covered for, there is no mention of jewellery what so ever.

It is quite a difficult wording even for an ex insurance person like me to get their head around - if it was easier i am sure lisyloo or someone current like that would have cracked it by now

The problem we are having is it seems so contradictory, one part states it is covered, another states it is not.

Do notice that the PDF page numbers do not correspond with the actual printed page numbers. When you said page 8 you meant PDF page 8, printed page 6 I think. When I said start reading about Jewellery on page 56 that is PDF page 58.

Yes just noticed this, the pages are a little out, I think the PDF is actually the plus one with the jewellery cover activated.

"Specified Valuable Articles None" is a bit of a downer because that means your parents haven't listed any special items on their own. So it will be the "Unspecified Valuables" limit in the schedule that we are looking for. But seems there isn't one ... ah no sorry there is ... that's the "Amount of valuables within total general contents"

So what is that limit ken?

That still leaves the question of whether the Jewellery Section is operative or not by default I think but one thing at a time. What's the limit I've bolded?

The limit in the section you have bolded £6,666

Thanks for your help I appreciate this, all sat here now trying to make sense of it.

2sides2everystory

Yes it is one of the weird ways of insurance policy wordings - they state very strongly in one section that something is NOT covered, and that is just an insurers way of saying you absolutely are not going to twist my arm into using THIS general section here or THIS other section there to cover THAT. There's a special section designed specially for THAT if you can find it alongwith the restrictions that go with covering THAT!


Unfortunately ken, I am quickly concluding good news and bad news reading between lines of your last post. This isn't a guarantee unfortunately because I'd need to pore over the actual paperwork to be sure ...

The good news I think is that the Jewellery part of the cover is working, but the bad news is that the maximum for all VALUABLES including jewellery looks like it might be £6666 with maybe a tweak for index-linking.

There will be further separate limits that your parents may still be able to use for other separately defined types of contents like MONEY which is defined separate from VALUABLES, and for any general possessions/clothing that are not furs, and not coin collections, works of art or stamp collections, for example. All that kind of stuff I think regrettably gets shepherded into the one tight £6666 unspecified valuables corral. Any less valuable items might be covered without low restriction under the general Contents section e.g. had they taken something like a 50" Plasma TV. A tv I think would be paid in full (more likely replaced) even if its replacement cost a few thousandon its own.

Do make sure your parents have a good hunt because Plasma TVs aside it is easy to not notice what is missing until weeks or months later. The crooks may have stolen bags or suitcases for example to carry the stuff - or perhaps it was just pocketable items?

Is there a smaller limit still on the schedule that you haven't mentioned for each unspecified valuable article? Depending on how many items were lost then that may reduce your £6666 further on jewellery/valuables.


Edit: I have to admit I am wobbling again ... I re-read your last post and that bit about "covers not included, also available on this policy", a few things are listed and it states "jewellery - with contents plus only".

"Contents Plus" seems to be an enhanced version of their basic Contents cover. Do you think what the schedule is telling us is that your parents only have basic Contents cover and no Contents Plus which might then mean no Jewellery cover? That would be cruel and I regret I would then have to think about how they may have been advised if the policy was sold to them as opposed to deliberately restricted by your parents.

As I said, it would strike me as very odd for Jewellery to be totally excluded for a simple burglary at home on a standard contents policy.

kenh11

Yes there is a smaller limit, a listing stating a "Single Valuable Article", with the value of £5,000.

Yes I think unfortunately we have both just reached the same conclusion, seems that jewellery (regardless of quantity or value) is simply covered to the £6,666. It was just jewellery and cash that was taken, as well as an old cigarette card collection.

How do you mean tweaking the index listing? Very interested in this.

I think it was basically some opportunistic thieves who simply grabbed everything of value and took it away in a carrier bag. Everythings been dusted and the police are doing there best and so on, and everythings been checked so were now looking at trying to work out this policy.

What is most upsetting is that a lot of it was very old, been in the family for generations and handed down over time. None of it was bought for pleasure, everything taken was sentimental in some way.

Anyhow, it also seems that the policy was actually mis-sold, if there would be grounds to complain and a chance of success?

Obviously my parents would have explained at the time of purchase that a significant value of jewellery was in the house, and I think from what they are saying the salesperson simply said "yes its all covered" or words to that effect. Seems to be a case for serious mis-selling of the policy on those grounds.

---

Just read up on index linking, don't think its applicable in this case as the policy was only started with NFU this year.

huckster

My reading of the NFU policy is that you need the Personal Belongings section, including the jewellery cover. Read the Personal Belongings and Jewellery cover, which are from pages 53-58.

As has been said, it appears that jewellery may be covered under the Contents unspecified valuables, if there is sum noted for this on the schedule. But if this is not mentioned, I think the more specific Personal Belongings and Jewellery sections are required.

Would suggest that they question the policy coverage with the office they bought the policy from. If they specifically requested cover for jewellery and the policy details are not correct, perhaps NFU can look into this. If NFU find a mistake, perhaps they can resolve this.

2sides2everystory

I have re-read it huckster and whilst it is I think you might agree a bit different to other wordings, the structure makes the following into discrete sections e.g.

Buildings
Contents
Contents Plus
Personal Belongings
Jewellery


These five for example are all mutually exclusive EXCEPT Personal Belongings which kind of looks a bit like what we all used to recognise as an optional "Worldwide All Risks" extension and which is basically a form of location extension. But on some policies this has become the place to start looking for specified valuables article cover. I think NFU have kind of overlapped Jewellery and Personal Belongings - I don't know if here is a logical explanation.

So whilst the Personal Belongings section might be the place to start to look on some policies, we I think already know it isn't activated here. So in this case I think we only have one chance on Jewellery - the Jewellery Section on page 56 which is a separate section for Jewellery and whilst it may or may not overlap if active it is not part of the Personal Belongings section. Reading between the lines, unless you have Contents Plus or Personal Belongings sections active they won't give you any Jewellery cover at all - that would be daft advice - every couple has jewellery of some kind ...

I am with huckster on having a gentle chat with the main man at the NFU local office and perhaps before the adjuster gets to add his two-pennorth? What do you think, huckster?

kenh11

Thanks for the replies.

Its pretty clear now that the jewellery section needs to be separately "activated" and paid for, if it was to cover the amount that has been taken.

All we can do now is obviously claim for the full £6,666 and then take it to NFU regarding the mis-sold policy.

Many, many thanks for all the help. It at least makes everything clearer.