Insurance wear and tear

Keefer10

What is the point of home insurance if companies use the same old kop out of 'wear and tear' for claims!!

comeandgo

I think it's only the cheaper ones that do that. My policy is new for old rather than replacement value.

Aretnap

The point is that you don't lose large amounts of money after a brek-in, storm, fire or accident.

It's not a cop out, it's a term of the policy. As above the cheaper policies will tend to make a deduction for wear and tear, ie if your old knackered sofa is destroyed they'll give you enough money to replace it with another old knackered sofa. You haven't lost out, you just don't have a brand new sofa to replace it with. The better polices will offer new for old cover, but obviously that costs more than the most basic level of cover. Did you check what sort of cover you were buying before you handed over your hard earned cash, or did you just pick the cheapest one from a price comparison site and assume it would be as good as the more expensive ones?

It also covers specific incidents, not general wear and tear, so you can't claim just because your 15 year old sofa is starting to look a bit shabby, or because your roof needs retiling every few decades. It's not supposed to be an alternative to maintaining your property or replacing your possessions as they wear out - it's to clever you against unexpected events.

If you're having trouble with a particular claim we might be able to help - but only if you tell us something about it.

geri1965_2

Most policies offer new for old cover, although clothes are usually subject to wear and tear.

trumass

Most modern insurance policies are "new for old" (excepting clothing, bed & table linens, towels etc., where "old for old" will typically apply) - however, this would only work if the overall sum insured (using the same criteria) is adequate. If at the outset you gave insurers a value to insure imagining a total catastrophe and having to replace everything new for old equivalent, where absolutely everything perishes, then your premium would have been calculated on that basis and in the event you suffer a loss that is insured, you should be adequate for any event - from minor, all the way up to total catastrophe. If you only insure an amount you think is the maximum, say, a thief could get away with (they probably wouldn't take carpet, sofas etc.), you would only be insuring effectively part of your total home contents, the premium you paid would only have been a fraction of what it ought, so how can you expect insurers to pay out 100% when they would only have received a fraction of the proper premium? Aretnap is correct that if you selected insurance through a comparison website, where your only criteria was seeking out the cheapest premium, you could indeed only have bought old for old cover. The premium would have been gauged on that basis and you get what you pay for (generally). Identifying the correct overall value at the first - and then seeking the most competitive premium for the correct value is largely the answer. Also, be aware of how the cover is structured - not all policies are the same. Even what are defined as "valuables" can vary from policy to policy. I could go on, but hopefully the above will be of some help to you and anyone else about to take out home insurance.

TSx

I read the initial post as "my claim has been declined as they said it was due to wear and tear" - I'd hazard a guess that it's roof repairs which the insurance won't cover.

Maybe a little clarification on what's happened would help?

RichardMiller

Wear and tear are excluded from insurance policy coverage as it is inevitable. Insurance is designed to protect against unforeseen losses. If insurance covers predictable losses, so it has to raise primer to cover the losses.
Most auto insurance company doesn't cover the replacements of auto parts, these can be covered by predictable process. For preparation on wear and tear, customer prepares self insure by giving money each month.

InsideInsurance

Keefer10 wrote: »

What is the point of home insurance if companies use the same old kop out of 'wear and tear' for claims!!

It is an insurance policy not a maintenance policy. It covers specific risks like flood, fire, earthquake which are all effectively random events that may or may not ever happen.

Wear and tear on the other hand is inevitable, nothing last forever and a property will always need ongoing work to keep it up and water tight etc. Insurance isnt there to cover the inevitable but the random.

Now, if you think the damage was caused by a specified peril rather than it just being wear and tear then you need to raise a complaint with your own evidence to confirm the cause of the damage