Insurance & matching sets exclusion

FutureGirl

If the insurers contractor disposed of the doors, then the insurer should be paying the cost for the replacement doors.

gazb84

Working in niche commercial lines I have only ever worked on the principle of indemnity I must admit, so yes my argument is flawed in those respects.


Insideinsurance - I'd still be keen to know your thoughts on the specific circumstances of my situation regarding the lack of communication resulting in the loss of the doors.

Cheers

FutureGirl

If I had come across this claim I would just cover the cost of replacement doors.

Log a complaint with the insurers. They may just agree to this anyway. It's likely they will.

InsideInsurance

gazb84 wrote: »

Insideinsurance - I'd still be keen to know your thoughts on the specific circumstances of my situation regarding the lack of communication resulting in the loss of the doors.

My comments were right at the beginning, that as their contracts have failed to do what had been agreed that a complaint should be raised with the insurer.

Personally I'd throw in that technically its costing both parties more given they are now offering 50% contribution on the undamaged parts where as had the doors been retained there'd be no need for that but ultimately your complaint is just about your additional outlay.

David_InsDef

If the retention of the doors was a requirement of the Loss Adjuster (and therefore the insurer) and neither he nor they communicated this to their appointed contractors; resulting in them being disposed of - then that's their problem to solve.

Based on your original post, the matching sets exclusion was never a factor / issue - i.e. they wanted the original doors used and you agreed. Assuming that as it stands, you would still be happy to have the original doors on (but can't - because they've binned them) - then the additional costs they face are borne out of their own incompetence.

I believe you have a strong case for standing your ground and refusing to pay the contribution - via a formal complaint if necessary. That said, in order to move things forward (and to get your kitchen reinstated) you may have to a) pay the contribution but put it in writing to the insurer that you're doing so whilst not considering it the full and final position or b) reach a compromise with them that they reinstate the kitchen in the knowledge that it'll go to the FOS to determine the complaint.

If you simply raise a complaint, you run the risk that you'll be sat around for (at least) 8 weeks whilst they determine it.

BJV

Completely agree with the last post. There is no issues or clause instead just miss-communication.


You acknowledged that the doors did not need to be replaced and agreed for new units which would use the old door fronts.


Your insurer appointed and agreed work with the contractor. They instructed the work to be done not you. The contractor therefore either did not understand their brief, was not told or chose to ignore the fact the old doors where going to be used.


While I understand that mistakes can happen any miss communication or miss understanding is not your fault. Your policy and cover is with the insurance provider and not the contractor. Not your fault it they make a mistake as the contractors in essence are not working for you they are working for the insurance company.

magpiecottage

From what the OP says, it seems that some parts were damaged/destroyed by the incident. The policy simply provides for those parts to be damaged.

However, the contractor threw out the non-damaged parts as well. The contractor was, it seems, appointed by the insurer (or a loss adjuster working for the insurer) and is therefore the insurer's agent.

This is significant because it means the insurer is responsible for the contractor's actions. (If you appoint a contractor and the insurer simply pays, then the contractor is your agent and the insurer is not usually responsible).

So, as the insurer's agent has incorrectly disposed of non damaged components, the insurer will need to make good that error. There is no little point in not ensuring that the replacements match.