esure saying matching jewellery set is treated as one item

zoooooni

hope anyone can help.we had burglary in oct 2014 where lots of asian jewellery was taken. esure passed our detail to LMG jewellery which made the valuation report.our insurance is upto 12000 pounds for high risk items provided each individual item is not worth more than 1500 pounds unless specified .since there were four matching sets which had earrings and matching necklace they are treating it as one item and valuating it together .for example one set earrings and necklace is vauled at 2500 pounds whereas separately its 1200 pounds for earings and 1300pounds for necklace and hence qualifies to be claimed for.they applied same rule to a set of matching bangles which had 8 matching ones and they says they will treat it as one item and hence above our limit to claim.i have a had a very good read at the policy booklet both online and one that came with the policy and no where it says that matching sets are classified as one item. the only term slightly relevant that i could find in the policy was
"any extra cost of altering or replacing any items or parts of items which are not lost or damaged and which form
part of a set, suite or other article, of the same type, colour or design including wall or floor coverings.'
there is also no separate section in policy for jewellery
can anyone please help me whether esure stands right in terms of classifying necklace and earrings as one item and set of matching bangles as one.
will greatly appreciate any help.thanks in advance

David_InsDef

I'd suggest that's a very unusual approach for an insurance company to take. Has that decision come from eSure or LMG?

dacouch

Were the item purchased or sold as a matching set or individual items and do you have proof of how this?

dacouch

This is the OP's other thread on this claim

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5123643

zoooooni

David_InsDef wrote: »

I'd suggest that's a very unusual approach for an insurance company to take. Has that decision come from eSure or LMG?

This decision had come from Esure . How ever valuation report has mentioned one price all inclusive of matching set .lmg called me today for some details and I asked them that are matching set treated as one ? They said we only prepare report and it depends how the insurance company takes it .i have provided them my pics wearing them as well as valuation reports of July 2014 as well as original receipts so my paper work is very thorough and complete .when I claimed I numbered the pic, receipt and description to match the item I was wearing in that pic . I claimed two seperate bracelet style bangles that are completely different but I was wearing both in one pic they priced it together .( lmg now said they will seperate it ) esure has been good so far they are not saying they will not pay but keep saying this is what has come from lmg we will ask them . But all I want to know is about matching set policy and to which extent it is true ?

zoooooni

dacouch wrote: »

Were the item purchased or sold as a matching set or individual items and do you have proof of how this?

Items were purchased as matching set and there is one receipt for one set .like set (earrings and necklace ) on one receipt. All bangles in one receipt . Thanks a lot for all your help so far .

David_InsDef

It sounds like you are being primed for a low-ball payout.

zoooooni

David_InsDef wrote: »

It sounds like you are being primed for a low-ball payout.

We also think the same . My husband is trying to sort things out by being extra nice so we get our money out.and I have even asked independant valuators regarding lmg valuing our jewellery much higher than its actually worth they all said its there way of not having to pay you .i really hope it gets sorted soon I have suffered from sleepless night anxiety stress and what not during this time despite mine being a genuine claim .thanks a lot for your help so far really appreciate it . 😊😊😊😊

InsideInsurance

If you bought them as a pair of earrings and separately a neckless and have a receipt(s) with separate prices listed for each then they are separate items and their values shouldnt be combined for limit consideration.

If you bought them as a set and there is only a single value for the set listed on the receipt then you'll have a much harder time to argue they arent one item even if they were available to be bought individually. Obviously a more extreme example would be a pair of diamond earrings and arguing each earring should be considered individually because you could go to a goldsmiths and get them to make a single 2ct earring for £x even though you bought them as a pair for £2x

The matching set clause you quote is to do with cases where just one part of a set is damaged or lost and if they have any liability to deal with the undamaged part of it if they cannot repair/ replace the other bit. There may be a definition somewhere in the policybook on what "an item is" but then if that were the case whenever "an item" is referred to it would be in bold print to show it relates to a specially defined term

zoooooni

InsideInsurance wrote: »

If you bought them as a pair of earrings and separately a neckless and have a receipt(s) with separate prices listed for each then they are separate items and their values shouldnt be combined for limit consideration.

If you bought them as a set and there is only a single value for the set listed on the receipt then you'll have a much harder time to argue they arent one item even if they were available to be bought individually. Obviously a more extreme example would be a pair of diamond earrings and arguing each earring should be considered individually because you could go to a goldsmiths and get them to make a single 2ct earring for £x even though you bought them as a pair for £2x

The matching set clause you quote is to do with cases where just one part of a set is damaged or lost and if they have any liability to deal with the undamaged part of it if they cannot repair/ replace the other bit. There may be a definition somewhere in the policybook on what "an item is" but then if that were the case whenever "an item" is referred to it would be in bold print to show it relates to a specially defined term

Thanks a lot for your reply . That's great help . Exactly what I have thought that it applied if parts of set have been taken . Asian receipts are always very basic they will list the weight of earrings and necklace seperately and then at the end will multiple that rate of gold and mention one price at the end . Even receipts where seperate prices are mentioned for bangles they have combined them may be to get away with not paying.lets see how it goes . Thanks once again for all help

bbk87

zoooooni wrote: »

Thanks a lot for your reply . That's great help . Exactly what I have thought that it applied if parts of set have been taken . Asian receipts are always very basic they will list the weight of earrings and necklace seperately and then at the end will multiple that rate of gold and mention one price at the end . Even receipts where seperate prices are mentioned for bangles they have combined them may be to get away with not paying.lets see how it goes . Thanks once again for all help

The report from LMG will say that the bangles are not to come under the single article limit. They always say that.