New Ipad insurance

Bargain.hunter_4

Hi,

Just checked my nat west electrical goods extended warranty/insurance service and they do not cover Ipads. Rather annoyingly.

Does anyone know where the best value policy can be purchased from? I just need basic insurance and extended warranty and dont want to put it on my house insurance, incase i do suffer the worst and then have to pay inflated premiums for years to come.

I have searched forums for this, but no luck.

Finally des anyone know if it matters that it was purchased abroad?

Thanks in advance.

InsideInsurance

Rarely does it matter if it is bought abroad, a few insurers will insist that it was legitimately brought into the country and so not a problem if from within the EU, evidently more of an issue if you "smuggled" it in from the USA etc and didnt pay the VAT/ Duty then it can be challenging

The problem with any mobile/ gadget insurance is the fact that so many items have an "accident" fairly soon after the next version is released and so terms tend to be very restrictive, it tends not to be new for old and they tend never to give you the benefit of the doubt. So by the time you get them to finally accept your claim you only get the secondhand value minus the excess.

Apple do their own AppleCare+ which does include some additional cover but not a full fat product.

Personally just self insure it

hugoshavez

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Rarely does it matter if it is bought abroad, a few insurers will insist that it was legitimately brought into the country and so not a problem if from within the EU, evidently more of an issue if you "smuggled" it in from the USA etc and didnt pay the VAT/ Duty then it can be challenging

That's interesting. I thought the FOS had effectively overturned Geismar v Sun Alliance .

FlameCloud

hugoshavez wrote: »

That's interesting. I thought the FOS had effectively overturned Geismar v Sun Alliance .

I think they will apply a reasonability test- i.e. how reasonable would it be for the person to know about the customs rules. For example pilots or people who travel abroad a lot for business will be expected to know the requirements and to comply with them.

That said, the last one I had regarding it was around £70k worth of asian gold that the gentlemen had seemingly 'forgotten' to disclose to customs and then sadly had stolen a week later. FOS backed the insurer on that one.

hugoshavez

FlameCloud wrote: »

I think they will apply a reasonability test- i.e. how reasonable would it be for the person to know about the customs rules. For example pilots or people who travel abroad a lot for business will be expected to know the requirements and to comply with them.

That said, the last one I had regarding it was around £70k worth of asian gold that the gentlemen had seemingly 'forgotten' to disclose to customs and then sadly had stolen a week later. FOS backed the insurer on that one.

Wow!

And they'd declined the jewellery as it was against public policy? Or was it more complicated?

Eg. Claimant hadn't proven ownership and non-payment of tax contributed to that conclusion...

FlameCloud

The claim itself was completly bent - I had proven that he had lied about the provenance of the receipts, they didnt match up with his Zakat statements and there was CCTV evidence that proved the theft from his premises didnt occur in the manner described, if at all.

However, as with a lot of cases the insurers bottled the kickout on fraud grounds and went with a lack of insurable interest quoting Geismar. It went to the FOS and insurers pressed the public interest aspect given the amount of travelling he did and the extent of tax evasion.

I think this is an area where the adjuster really needs to use common sense- stuff like (domestic) electronics I dont think insurers really care about but large amounts of (invariably) asian jewellery most will allow it to be used if pre inception issues cant be brought forward.Given the normal costs for this type of claim its worth a punt to the FOS I think especially if you can back it up with other issues.

opinions4u

In answer to the OP:

1. A home contents policy is an option, covering more than just an iPad or

2. Self insure. An iPad is a relatively low value item. A savings account where you stick any possible insurance premium means you're earning interest on the money instead of an insurer deducting a percentage to pay their shareholders. Just ont break it before you hit £399 or whatever the magic number is!

Me? I'd insure my home contents AND save up for replacement everything.

InsideInsurance

hugoshavez wrote: »

That's interesting. I thought the FOS had effectively overturned Geismar v Sun Alliance .

It would also depend on what "insurance" is bought, some are sold as a warranty and may include insurance like features but avoid FOS oversight