Mobile Phone Insurance

pianowizz

In light of the new FCA report which is very critical of Mobile Phone insurers ... does anyone have any tips about a good insurer who will actually pay out if you lose your phone?

im-lost

Bit of a storm in a teacup really. Insurance is completely black and white. There's no grey areas where there's room for either side to try to turn things to their advantage.

You either meet the terms of the insurance you've signed up to or you don't.

For them to claim it's 'virtually impossible' to make a successful claim really is complete nonsense.

The figures of lost or stolen phones in this country speak for themselves, you can have hundreds of thousands of successful claims if it's 'virtually impossible' to make a claim in the first place.

It's a completely biased report by a toothless 'regulator' trying to flex a few muscles and getting it spectacularly wrong.

Yes there's a few insurers with what could be possibly be deemed to be unfair or unclear terms, but it's not as widespread enough to say it's 'virtually impossible' to make a claim.

But to answer the original question, I'd recommend cover either directly from your network, as they generally accept and send out phones really quickly, I'd also recommend getting it via a pack aged bank account, I've recently had a claim via rbs, their insurance is via aviva and carphonewarehouse.

Claim was put in online, withing 6 hours it had been accepted, phone and paid my excess and a new phone was delivered the next day, a couple of days late and accessory voucher to redeem in carphonewarehouse was received.

If I were a betting man, I'd say the company that due to be fined will be one if the major companies that offer cover, I wouldnt like to guess who, but having read through terms when looking for cover myself, I'd hazard a guess at someone like 'protect your bubble'

But yeah, going direct with a network of via a bank account would generally be a better idea, they both have more of an interest in keeping their users happy and not denying claims on spurious grounds, and in my experience, both have a rather painless and quick claims process.

Buzby

Whether any insurer will pay out is determined by the policy terms, its exclusions, and what actually happened.

Adding it to your All Risks away-from-home policy is always the cheaper option.

grumbler

im-lost wrote: »

Insurance is completely black and white. There's no grey areas where there's room for either side to try to turn things to their advantage.

How about 'reasonable care'? Is it black and white too, i.e. perfectly clear for both sides what is reasonable and what is not?

im-lost

grumbler wrote: »

How about 'reasonable care'? Is it black and white too, i.e. perfectly clear for both sides what is reasonable and what is not?

Well, yes, it is rather black and white. The courts have ruled on whatis ddeemed to be reasonable care on multiple occasions

But if you give an example it can be answered better, in pretty much all scenarios you can deduce if someone has taken reasonable care of an item.

'reasonable care' isn't some special get out clause for insurers, because at the end of the day, if someone wishes to, they can put their argument to a court to have it defined as reasonable or not.

So, yes, it's black and white, in so far as you have or haven't taken reasonable care of your insured items, but it all comes down to each individual case.

it's very rare that someone can think they have taken reasonable care of an item, and then to have claims denied.

fishforsale

1 good tip

Never go with protect your bubble

grumbler

im-lost wrote: »

Well, yes, it is rather black and white. The courts have ruled on whatis ddeemed to be reasonable care on multiple occasions

But if you give an example it can be answered better, in pretty much all scenarios you can deduce if someone has taken reasonable care of an item.

'reasonable care' isn't some special get out clause for insurers, because at the end of the day, if someone wishes to, they can put their argument to a court to have it defined as reasonable or not.

So, yes, it's black and white, in so far as you have or haven't taken reasonable care of your insured items, but it all comes down to each individual case.

Well, what you say looks rather grey than black/white. Otherwise there would be no need to get courts involved.

it's very rare that someone can think they have taken reasonable care of an item, and then to have claims denied.

Want an example?

... were sitting on a bench with the iphone in ...handbag which was on the bench beside her. ... bag had been stolen by someone behind the bench... they would not pay out as they said the bag should have been on her lap, under her arm or between her knees - which of course we all do when sitting on a bench!!!!

Surely "on her lap, under her arm or between her knees" is white and everything else is black .

Needless to say it was notorious 'Bubble' (see the post above - what a coincidence!).

im-lost

grumbler wrote: »

Well, what you say looks rather grey than black/white. Otherwise there would be no need to get courts involved.

Want an example?
Surely "on her lap, under her arm or between her knees" is white and everything else is black .

Needless to say it was notorious 'Bubble' (see the post above - what a coincidence!).

Well, each side would have their own opinion on what they themselves would deem reasonable, but the 'reasonable man' within a court scenario has no opinion, just a simple black and white, yes or no, is or isn't reasonable, there is no grey area in thus instance, so yes, where two parties can't agree what they think us reasonable, it's good to have the unbiased view of the 'reasonable man' to pass judgement.

Well, as a 'reasonable person' myself, I would have to agree with the insurers in that case.

Having a bag in plain view and making no attempt to stop a theft from occurring, would imo mean you haven't taken reasonable care of the said items.

She could have, as suggested put the bag on the floor between her legs out of view, or on her lap. She could also have had the strap over her shoulder.

I know a few women, I know right, you're shocked, me, knowing women, and I don't think I've ever witnessed one who has just taken their bag off and left it unattended next to them whilst sitting on a bench, most of then, albeit probably unknowingly do a lot to prevent their precious bags from being stolen, the have them over the shoulder and rest a hand on it, they have them in from of them, hands resting on them etc etc

So to the 'reasonable person' a bag thats just left isn't taking reasonable care of something, where as to the owner / claimant the bag was only next to them so they think they were taking care of their bag, when in actual fact they haven't taken care of the bag, but left it unsecured, in plain view, in a public place

grumbler

I am shocked? Why?
I think you are confusing me with some other person.

What you and they describe makes theft simply impossible that makes it unreasonable to waste money on insurance against theft.
2-year extended warranty with accidental damage protection costs just £2 p.m. for £500 phones.

Personally, I do take reasonable care and don't waste money.

Bingolingo

im-lost wrote: »

Well, yes, it is rather black and white. The courts have ruled on whatis ddeemed to be reasonable care on multiple occasions

But if you give an example it can be answered better, in pretty much all scenarios you can deduce if someone has taken reasonable care of an item.

'reasonable care' isn't some special get out clause for insurers, because at the end of the day, if someone wishes to, they can put their argument to a court to have it defined as reasonable or not.

So, yes, it's black and white, in so far as you have or haven't taken reasonable care of your insured items, but it all comes down to each individual case.

it's very rare that someone can think they have taken reasonable care of an item, and then to have claims denied.

I think if you read some of the cases using 'reasonableness' tests you will see that the courts' decisions are not necessarily of help to the average consumer.

What one person defines as reasonable can easily be argued against and this is the problem for consumers. They rely on the insurer to make a 'reasonable' decision yet how they come to that is opaque. The insurer also has their business at heart and will not always make a fair decision.

Personally I welcome more guidance from the FCA instructing insurers to be more specific and clear with their terms.

tim75

Theft and loss insurance have so many exclusions it's not worth having. Plus most companies charge extra for loss. I know of two companies who don’t pretend to cover T&L Square Trade and Why Warranties.