Axa Insurance Complaint

love2learn

Hi,

I have recently made a claim on my Landlords Insurance Policy with AXA. I had an escape of water problem, which was located and fixed, which resulted in damage to a variety of items.

Part of the claim is for two damaged kitchen carcasses, and two damaged kitchen doors. The insurer says they will pay for the replacement of both of these, but as the contractor can't get exact matches for the doors, this means the replacement doors won't match the existing doors in the kitchen.

This means all other doors and drawer fronts will need to be replaced in order to match the replacement doors. The insurer said they will only pay 50% towards the costs of the other doors, drawer fronts etc even though if not replacing them we would have a kitchen with different coloured doors.

I was under the impression that an insurance policy is supposed to put the holder of the policy in exactly the same position they were in prior to the loss occurring and hence indemnify the policyholder for their loss?

Anyway, I read through the entire policy wording and it states that they will cover damage to property. It does not at any point state anywhere that it would only cover the damage item even if it's part of a set.

Luckily the contractor is able to replace the kitchen carcasses on a like for like basis, so the whole kitchen doesn't need to be redone. However when I spoke to my insurer "AXA", they confirmed that if the kitchen had to be redone then they would have only covered the damaged part. Which obviously would have meant we would have been massively out of pocket in that scenario. So this has concerned me enough to make an official complaint.

Obviously anyone would be forgiven for thinking this insurance policy is rather inadequate and that I should have read my documents. Well the fact is, I did read my documents, and I seen nothing of the sort in them. I think I am within my rights to expect the insurance company to list exclusions to their cover within the policy wording? Shouldn't they have a clause stating they will not cover a full set of anything if only part of the set is damaged, even if this means the set looks ridiculous as it wouldn't match? If there was a clause stating this and I continued with the policy anyway, then absolutely I would be bang to rights and it would be my own fault for not reading it. But there is absolutely no clause that I can see covering this clearly and adequately.

I see on the Financial Ombudsman website they normally take an approach where the insurer only has to pay 50% towards non damaged items even if they are in a set. Personally I don't agree with that either. But If they've ruled that, then I won't argue with it as I suspect it would involve court action and a lot of legal expenses.

But what I can't accept is that my insurer did not adequately word their policy document to details this.

Your thoughts please?

Quentin

love2learn wrote: »

Your thoughts please?

Learn from this.


You generally get what you pay for.


If you want full cover for matching sets etc then make sure you get it when you renew (elsewhere than with Axa)

ripplyuk

I believe this is the case with most home insurance, especially cheaper policies. My own home insurance documents don't mention matching sets cover, so I take that to mean they don't offer it. I know Hiscox do as I've also read their policy booklet but I'm sure there are others.

I believe the same thing would happen with for eg, a three piece suite, where only one armchair is damaged.

love2learn

I agree with both of you, and yes I will definitely learn from it. And when my claim has been paid and all is well I will be cancelling with Axa and taking another insurance policy with another provider after making sure they cover matching sets in full, even if it means paying more.

I naively assumed AXA was a name I could trust given it's size and well known name.

However I'm still going to complain to the Financial Ombudsman, not to get the other 50% paid as I don't expect to win. But to make a case that insurers should be forced to list this as a significant exclusion. My insurer absolutely did not list it so I genuinely believe they are being deceptive by not clearly wording this. I can't imagine for a second that this is a rare event, I can think of many different ways this could affect an insurance claim.

I think it's fair to say most people without an in depth knowledge of insurance claims would expect if part of a set of anything is damaged and need replaced, if the insurer can't replace the damaged item like for like then they should replace the whole set. I don't think what I was expecting was unreasonable and as such if they're not going to cover it they should state clearly that they won't in their policy wording or the customer is unable to make an informed decision on whether the policy adequately covers them.

I will post back on this thread when I have the conclusion of FOS.

InsideInsurance

Matching sets exclusion is the norm and very few policies not aimed at the HNW have cover for it. As you will have worked out, its very expensive coverage to give on the basis that one small accident can result in a whole kitchen being replaced under it.

Looking at the Axa Direct Landlords policy it is not clearly called out and on that basis it is possibly worth a complaint if its equally unclear in your policybook.

The norm for the FOS is to insist that the insurer contributes 50% of the cost of replacing the other half if there is a matching sets exclusion but even then only so far - ie they wont make an insurer recarpet a whole house even if the house originally had matching flooring throughout. Axa have already done this so you really need to play on the lack of a clause rather than the clause being bad.


Axa are a composite insurance company, they provide the whole spectrum from ultra budget insurance all the way up to 5* HNW cover. You cant think Lamborghini are great cars and so buy a Skoda because they are both made by VAG and expect the same level of performance.

stator

It is something I've seen several insurers adding the their policy documents these days, saying that they specifically don't cover matching sets.
Personally I wouldn't expect it to be covered unless it said it was covered. Replacing undamaged items is unnecessary and a bit of waste.

Have you looked on eBay to see if you can get matching doors?

love2learn

stator wrote: »

It is something I've seen several insurers adding the their policy documents these days, saying that they specifically don't cover matching sets.
Personally I wouldn't expect it to be covered unless it said it was covered. Replacing undamaged items is unnecessary and a bit of waste.

Have you looked on eBay to see if you can get matching doors?

That's the issue, the insurance company hasn't said they do not cover matching items even if part of a set in the policy wording. We're not talking something trivial here, but the kitchen which absolutely devalues the property if the doors and drawer fronts don't match.

I'm not looking to profit from the loss, just to be in the same position as I was prior to the loss having happened with paying only agreed excess limits. As my insurer didn't make it clear in their policy wording document, then I had no way of making an informed decision on whether or not to continue with the policy during the 14 day cooling off period. I then logically consider their policy wording document inadequate in it's description of exactly what it does and does not cover.

If contractor had not been able to source the same sized kitchen carcasses, then all carcasses would have had to been replaced as well as doors and drawer fronts. Which means AXA would only have paid 50% towards the cost of that. I'm relieved that wasn't the case as that would have been a considerable cost and absolutely proved beyond reasonable doubt that the insurance policy is rubbish.

If I'd have known this at the point of sale there's no way I would have continued with the policy. I buy insurance for peace of mind, not to wonder what if. When the claim has been settled I will cancel it and I'm willing to pay double if need be on premiums to get an insurance policy that's actually complete and doesn't cut corners.

love2learn

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Matching sets exclusion is the norm and very few policies not aimed at the HNW have cover for it. As you will have worked out, its very expensive coverage to give on the basis that one small accident can result in a whole kitchen being replaced under it.

Looking at the Axa Direct Landlords policy it is not clearly called out and on that basis it is possibly worth a complaint if its equally unclear in your policybook.

The norm for the FOS is to insist that the insurer contributes 50% of the cost of replacing the other half if there is a matching sets exclusion but even then only so far - ie they wont make an insurer recarpet a whole house even if the house originally had matching flooring throughout. Axa have already done this so you really need to play on the lack of a clause rather than the clause being bad.


Axa are a composite insurance company, they provide the whole spectrum from ultra budget insurance all the way up to 5* HNW cover. You cant think Lamborghini are great cars and so buy a Skoda because they are both made by VAG and expect the same level of performance.

Yeah I would expect an exclusion stating this in their policy wording. But no exclusion adequately wording this situation exists. And I'm left thinking, that if they did put it in their policy wording document would that loose them some sales.

If the builder hadn't found the same sized units, then I would have had to pay 50% of all units, doors and drawer fronts. I would have much rather paid even double each month to have a complete insurance policy for peace of mind.

In terms of Axa offering various levels of cover. It's a landlord policy they only offer two types from what I can see on their website. Commercial landlord and Residential Landlord. Commercial for business premises such as offices, shops etc and Residential if for tenanted properties.

There's no option during the quote stage to opt for different levels of cover, other than for Accidental Damage (which it took) and increased liability cover etc. There's nothing I could have selected to make sure I had matching sets cover for my particular circumstance or I absolutely would have paid extra for it.

If a potential customer has never been in the situation I am now, they have no experience of this. So the policy wording should in all fairness state matching set cover as an exclusion. There are literally loads of different possibilities where this exclusion could come in to play, but yet nothing clearly excludes on the policy.

I don't expect to get the monetary side ruled in my favor, but I will expect something to be done about this inadequate policy wording. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

stator

How many doors are we talking about? I pressume they are expensive, so painting them all is not an option?

Rossim1985

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Matching sets exclusion is the norm and very few policies not aimed at the HNW have cover for it.

Axa are a composite insurance company, they provide the whole spectrum from ultra budget insurance all the way up to 5* HNW cover. You cant think Lamborghini are great cars and so buy a Skoda because they are both made by VAG and expect the same level of performance.

AXA do cover this but certainly not under the product you've bought. As the poster above said, this sort of cover is more at the 'Lamborghini' end of the market. Or alternatively on policies sold by brokers.

AXA's PIPP wording which is one of their most comprehensive property wordings includes reinstatement to match on page 20. (Google "axa property investors protection wording" - I can't post links being a new MSE user). I've checked the Landlord document to and it's definitely not in there. That policy will only cover damaged areas so I'm afraid I think it's unlikely you'll win the argument here. Worth a try though.

rs65

The FOS deal with specific complaints and ask

How do you want the business to put things right for you?

You seem to accept that the claim outcome is not going to change. Your complaint seems that you wouldn't have bought the policy if you had known that AXA don't cover undamaged items.

Do you want them to accept a belated cancellation because it didn't meet your needs?