Contents Insurance....Is it really worth it?

mikey72

steve1980 wrote: »

Any old reason not to pay out.

When I took the policy out I was asked to provide details of high value items only that would need to be covered away from the home. It would appear that personal possessions are not covered on my policy (this excludes the items that have already been listed) and anything in the car is not covered under the standard policy, this would be classed as personal possessions.

The term "personal possessions" would appear to be different under every unsurance company.

They are going to listen to the recording and come back to me in 48 hours to let me know what had been said.....this should be interesting......

Update: 14:25. Received a call back to say that the bag was not listed in the specified items list so they will not be accepting the claim.

Asked if this has gone down as a claim "it will go down as a "nil claim".....Watchdog anyone......

I thought you said they paid out for the keys?
Personal possessions are usually an add on with most policies.

dacouch

mikey72 wrote: »

That would be interesting if insurers refused to pay out on anything but saloon cars.

I would think from

"the items stolen were out of sight in a locked luggage boot, luggage or glove compartmen"

the claim would be from a l,ocked luggage compartment, and they wouldn't really be able to argue.,

Plenty of companies will not pay out for items stolen from the boot of a hatchback as you only have to break into the main part of the car eg smash a window to gain access to them. Hence the legend locked boot or locked glove compartment to try to minimise the chances of a claim.

You find a similar wording on most travel policies

The amount of people who leave lap tops etc under their front seats never ceases to amaze me and the people who leave them in full view on the front or back seats is another thing

mikey72

dacouch wrote: »

Plenty of companies will not pay out for items stolen from the boot of a hatchback as you only have to break into the main part of the car eg smash a window to gain access to them. Hence the legend locked boot or locked glove compartment to try to minimise the chances of a claim.

You find a similar wording on most travel policies

The amount of people who leave lap tops etc under their front seats never ceases to amaze me and the people who leave them in full view on the front or back seats is another thing

Well, all our hatchbacks have items left in a "locked luggage compartment"
That's the area behind the seats to me, and if the car doors and tailgate are locked, I can't see that clause being compromised.

I agree they'll try to refuse the claim where they think they could get away with it, but excluding most cars on the road cold be hard even for an iinsurer.

Bangton

My sympathies with the situation but personally I think you have misunderstood the cover you have.

Personal Possessions is the same thing with all insurance companies. PP is an add on that you must pay for to cover items designed to be carried or worn away from home. If you haven't paid extra you won't have this included in the policy and thus will not be covered for such items whilst out and about.

Asking you to specify high value items is covering for expensive items (usually over £1500). Specifying an item means it is covered in and out of the home (for example a diamond ring worth £5,000) but DOES not mean that you have personal possessions cover.

lisyloo

but I would never, ever leave a bag with cards, keys etc in a car - whether in the boot or not

Me neither, although that doesn't of course means they deserve what they got, so I'm not unsympathethic either, just would never leave my valuables unattended.

dacouch

mikey72 wrote: »

Well, all our hatchbacks have items left in a "locked luggage compartment"
That's the area behind the seats to me, and if the car doors and tailgate are locked, I can't see that clause being compromised.

I agree they'll try to refuse the claim where they think they could get away with it, but excluding most cars on the road cold be hard even for an iinsurer.

As I said plenty of companies would not pay out if the item was not stolen from a locked boot eg not a hatchback boot.

If you read the restriction in the OP's policy.

u) theft from motor vehicles unless at the time of the loss or damage:
– someone aged 16 or over was in the motor
vehicle or
– the motor vehicle was securely locked AND
– force and violence were used to get into the motor vehicle and
– the items stolen were out of sight in a LOCKED luggage boot, luggage
or glove compartment

Note how they have said the car was securely locked and the items were in a locked boot or locked glove / luggage compartment. If they intended covering thefts were the car was broken into by say smashing a window and then taking items that were in the hatchback boot, they would not have put "And" after the vehicle being locked part.

mikey72

My hatchback has got a luggage compartment, and it locks with the central locking, and it's out of site under the cover.

So my interpretation means it is covered.

Indeed, if you look at the punctuation, it's either

locked luggage boot,
luggage
or glove compartment

so it makes sense the boot has to be locked, but luggage compartment and glove lockers are integral to the car, so can't be locked by themselves. (Gone are the good old days when glove compartments had locks, are were called glove lockers)

TSx

I've dealt with hundreds of these claims and never repudiated on the basis of it being a hatchback. The only time we repudiate is if the items are not in the boot or glove box. We don't define the term boot but it's common sense. Castle Cover sometimes use odd wording but they do not intend it in the way you are interpreting it.

Again, this is on the basis of dealing with (hundreds is an exaggeration ) a lot of claims for this sort of thing for a castle cover underwriter.

PS: I know I got it wrong in an earlier post - but this is an informal forum so it'll happen from time to time :-)

To the OP, I'm afraid that it would appear the difference in cover hasn't been fully explained to you - it may be worth progressing a complaint against castle cover on the basis that they mis-sold the policy to you, but they have the recording and seem happy with it so that suggests they feel comfortable with the sales call.

dacouch

TSx wrote: »

I've dealt with hundreds of these claims and never repudiated on the basis of it being a hatchback. The only time we repudiate is if the items are not in the boot or glove box. We don't define the term boot but it's common sense. Castle Cover sometimes use odd wording but they do not intend it in the way you are interpreting it.

Again, this is on the basis of dealing with (hundreds is an exaggeration ) a lot of claims for this sort of thing for a castle cover underwriter.

PS: I know I got it wrong in an earlier post - but this is an informal forum so it'll happen from time to time :-)

To the OP, I'm afraid that it would appear the difference in cover hasn't been fully explained to you - it may be worth progressing a complaint against castle cover on the basis that they mis-sold the policy to you, but they have the recording and seem happy with it so that suggests they feel comfortable with the sales call.

With all due respect, how do you know how L&G interpret that wording in their policy unless you work for them.

I know L&G very very well and they would normally pay these types of claims for their bigger supporting brokers but do on occassions decline them for smaller brokers.

You could well pay claims for these, but your wording for it could be completely different from the restrictions in the Castle Policy.

ruthie77

Hi, just going to jump on here.

I have been reading through the posts here and was a little confused, but hey nothing unusual for me!! From what I can see you're within your rights as a policyholder to make your claim. I have read the policy wording and have come to what my interpretation of it is. Now, this may not be what your insurer interprets it as but here we go.

The policy wording to me reads as if you have personal possessions listed in your schedule, then you are covered to the limit shown. The only requirement for specifying an item is if it's value is over the amount of £2000 as this would entitle you the value of said item. All of this is noted on page 29.

Now, from this I read it to mean that there is no requirement to specify an item unless above this limit. If it were me I would challenge the decision that has been made and request that they advise you exactly where in your policy booklet it says you must specify every item, regardless of value, that you may take outside the home.

Hope this helps.