home insurance claim help please??

paddyandstumpy

Daniel54 wrote: »

You cannot buy something used and claim for the cost of buying it new.The amplifier was used and had a value of £3,500 at the time it was insured.Putting you back to the position you were in before the loss is, as an absolute maximum, the cost of buying an equivalent amplifier second hand on ebay ( or elsewhere).

From what has been said,this is a generous offer and there is no mileage in not accepting it.

The offer is to indemnify you against the full purchase price of the used amplifier ( as per the handwritten proofs provided) which would also appear to be in excess of the normal single item limit.

You are insured for old for old

No... the OP has quite clearly stated his policy is NEW for old... so he is entitled to a new, suitable replacement.

The only snag seems to be the limit per item for audio.

maddogb

Daniel54 wrote: »

You cannot buy something used and claim for the cost of buying it new.The amplifier was used and had a value of £3,500 at the time it was insured.Putting you back to the position you were in before the loss is, as an absolute maximum, the cost of buying an equivalent amplifier second hand on ebay ( or elsewhere).

From what has been said,this is a generous offer and there is no mileage in not accepting it.

The offer is to indemnify you against the full purchase price of the used amplifier ( as per the handwritten proofs provided) which would also appear to be in excess of the normal single item limit.

You are insured for old for old

as far as I am aware the principle of insurance which still holds true is the legal term "held harmless"
This is a way of saying that you should be put back to the position you were in before the accident, not before the purchase..
insurance payouts are considered damages not payment for products.

BJV

I am all for making companies pay what they should. BUT hate to say it I think that their offer is amazing!!!!.

Yes you where not to know that the replacement cost was so high but equally maddogb said the whole concept of insurance is to make sure that you are not financially worse off not to gain.

I know that this is going to be a bitter pill to swallow but surely if you purchased it used three years ago why not use the money to buy another used one????

It is no-ones fault and I am sorry but accident do happen and that is what insurance is for.

I am not a home insurance expert but I do know that every time I insurance my home contents they ask me if there is anything worth over a certain amount and I have to specify them.

BJV

just tried to see a halifax document and gosh there are a lot. https://www.halifax.co.uk/insurance/home-insurance/help/policy-documents/

rs65

maddogb wrote: »

as far as I am aware the principle of insurance which still holds true is the legal term "held harmless"
This is a way of saying that you should be put back to the position you were in before the accident, not before

You are referring to indemnity. Hold harmless is something different. New for old home insurance goes beyond indemnity anyway.

maddogb

rs65 wrote: »

You are referring to indemnity. Hold harmless is something different. New for old home insurance goes beyond indemnity anyway.

Please don't tell people what "they" are referring to, I wasn't for sure, and indemnity is a generic term not specific to the way the law views the responsibility of the insurer.
Possibly you missed the post I was responding to giving context.

rs65

maddogb wrote: »

Please don't tell people what "they" are referring to, I wasn't for sure, and indemnity is a generic term not specific to the way the law views the responsibility of the insurer.
Possibly you missed the post I was responding to giving context.

I saw the post. A basic principle of insurance is indemnity - to put you in the position you were in prior to the loss. This is the way the law views the responsibility of insurers. Hold harmless is entirely different.

Nearlyold

OP - Is there an overall limit on the value of your home contents cover?

maddogb

rs65 wrote: »

I saw the post. A basic principle of insurance is indemnity - to put you in the position you were in prior to the loss. This is the way the law views the responsibility of insurers. Hold harmless is entirely different.

do yourself a favour so you stop looking silly, the oxford dictionary definition of "hold harmless"


"Indemnify someone or something."


but it(hold harmless) is not a synonym for indemnity which can relate to other things than insurance..

rs65

maddogb wrote: »

do yourself a favour so you stop looking silly, the oxford dictionary definition of "hold harmless"


"Indemnify someone or something."


but it(hold harmless) is not a synonym for indemnity which can relate to other things than insurance..

Indemnity is different to indemnify.

You said....

as far as I am aware the principle of insurance which still holds true is the legal term "held harmless"
This is a way of saying that you should be put back to the position you were in before the accident, not before the purchase..


Held harmless isn't a principle of insurance. What you have described is the principle of indemnity.