Home Insurance - definitions.

huckster

I think NFU or someone that works for them needs to explain what cover the policy provides, so the policyholder needs to speak to the managing agent at the branch they dealt with.

I think we are both guessing, going by the information available. I don't like the NFU policy wording, as it is not clear. I have come across Insurers who have made policyholders take out the Personal Belongings cover to cover items such as jewellery in and away from home. This is to avoid people claiming for losses in the home, which have actually happened away from home, but the premium for cover away from home had not been paid. Saves arguments where the policyholder cannot remember where they lost a ring for example. If they only had cover for losses in the home, they are bound to argue that.

kenh11

I think there are definite grounds for a complaint regarding the sale of the policy.

Speaking with parents now and they are pretty wise, certainly would never have accepted a policy that didn't cover such valuable family heirlooms.

Again, thanks for the replies. Will post again when something happens with NFU.

kingstreet

If this was an "advised" sale, I'd be aggrieved if this was offered as standard cover when clearly it isn't the case if there's a jewellery exclusion.

I'd expect to find jewellery covered in the contents section with a fairly low single item limit, with the option of taking personal possessions cover for higher value individual items listed separately which would be protected away from home.

2sides2everystory

Thesedays most insurers give a blanket total contents limit of £50,000 or even greater. Mine is a standard £125,000 on a small apartment ! Of course that is absurd - I dont need a half or maybe even a third of that sum insured even on a new replacement cost basis, but it doesnt matter because I am not really paying much for the limit because it's rated on bedrooms and postcodes and its their standard blanket limit.

However, that inner £6666 figure has surprised me.

In the old days as I said earlier, yes there would be an inner limit on valuables but it might be 33% of the total contents or a flat £15,000 say or £10,000.

£6666 is a slightly odd number which happens to be 33% of £20,000. Surely that wasn't the general contents sum on the schedule? Nah ... surely no-one would advise that.

I have just checked my own policy - I have indeed got a valuables inner limit of just £5,000 within my daft upper limit of £125,000 so its not so odd to be that low as standard. However from an advice point of view it is not good to let everyone buy such a low limit without discussing the consequences, and I'd say it can only be symptomatic of a sneaky attempt by insurers generally to keep claims costs down via the back door. Luckily I don't have much jewellery or a Rolex but I think I'll call my insurers tomorrow and just check what higher inner limit may be available and also be reminded of how they think their 'Personal Possessions' extension works

Fingers crossed you can get a fair result for your parents then ken.

kingstreet

I've just had a quick gander at the Paymentshield T&Cs for Contents cover and the following applies;-

The most you can claim for any individual item is
£5,000 unless the item is specified on your
certificate.(Personal Possessions Cover)

Unless specified on your certificate a valuables
cover limit of £2,000 applies to any individual item.

A total limit of £15,000 applies to all items of
jewellery, gold and silver articles, furs, clocks,
watches, pictures, other works of art, sculptures
and collections of stamps, medals or coins.We will
require a receipt or valuation for these items in the
event of a claim.

That's for a bedroom-rated policy with £40,000 contents limit.