One Show

dacouch

Oh dear, they've just suggested that if you have an expensive heirloom that costs a lot to Insure. If you would not want it replaced as it's of sentimental value then don't bother paying to insure it as you would be wasting your money.

If you follow their advice and have a claim, you could find your entire claim reduced by the percentage you have under insured by due to omitting the heirloom.

It could potentially cost you many thousands of your claim

phildallier

We have to think about it....
Thank's from France !

lisyloo

If you follow their advice and have a claim, you could find your entire claim reduced by the percentage you have under insured by due to omitting the heirloom.

This assumes the insurer knows about your heirloom.
Now I'm not suggesting lying, but I presume that if items are missing entirely or very badly damaged (fire?) then the insurer is reliant on you to list what you had.
I realise there are some forensics they can do to prove fraud in fire cases but I can't imagine this is routine and it wouldn't work for missing items.

So putting aside the fact that we are not condoning lying - how would the insurer know you have the heirloom?

Perhaps the kind of people that don't value it could genuinely forget about such an item - again that's not a cover for lying but I'm saying it has no value to them in their mind.

But still good point to make - it's one I point out to my DH all the time when he wants to keep old videos and books (we have to insure them new for old).