Home insurance will only pay 50%!!

J0hnB0

Hi,
Please help.
I have contents insurance with Zurich and 2 months ago I made my first claim due to a small in the kitchen due to the cooker hob being left on.
The fire damaged the flooring, cooker, a section of the worktop and the ceiling.
The cooker flooring and ceiling have been repaired but the worktop is no longer available and Zurich have said that I have to pay 50% of the rest of the worktop if I want it to match!! The section damaged is roughly 15%of the total length of the worktop!!!

Is this common practice? They said that it is in their t's & c's but I can't see anything about it.
I've told them no and they've sent a letter stating that it is their final offer and to go to the financial ombudsman if I don't agree.

What can I do?? What are my options??

Please help!!

John

Aylesbury_Duck

Your option is to go to the financial ombudsman, as stated. However, before you do, do your homework thoroughly. Scour those Ts & Cs to see if you can find the clause they are referring to. If you cannot find it, it will make your case stronger.

I suspect Zurich's argument is that if they replaced the whole worktop, you would be in a better position than you were in before the fire, hence their contribution to it being limited.

This is a lesson for all of us. Too many of us jump on comparison sites and choose insurance on a price criterion only. There are better policies with more favourable terms if you look beyond price.

stator

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I suspect Zurich's argument is that if they replaced the whole worktop, you would be in a better position than you were in before the fire, hence their contribution to it being limited.

This is a lesson for all of us. Too many of us jump on comparison sites and choose insurance on a price criterion only. There are better policies with more favourable terms if you look beyond price.

But there is no easy way to compare them all. Comparing the T&C of 10+ insurers would take months

Aylesbury_Duck

stator wrote: »

But there is no easy way to compare them all. Comparing the T&C of 10+ insurers would take months

It would, and I'm not suggesting that level of detailed analysis, but there are lists/tables of insurers rated by things other than price, such as those with the least/most number of rejected or partially rejected claims, those with the best customer service rating and so on.

I'm sure a number of insurers cut corners and cover to ensure they appear at or near the top of the comparison sites - why wouldn't they when the vast majority of us use those sites to shop?

Jackmydad

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

It would, and I'm not suggesting that level of detailed analysis, but there are lists/tables of insurers rated by things other than price, such as those with the least/most number of rejected or partially rejected claims, those with the best customer service rating and so on.

I'm sure a number of insurers cut corners and cover to ensure they appear at or near the top of the comparison sites - why wouldn't they when the vast majority of us use those sites to shop?

And I always have a quick flick through their policy before "signing up"
Some (at least?) have definite "what's not included" terms.
Put me off at least one that I can remember.

J0hnB0

Well it looks like I'll go to the ombudsman then. I did read through the t&c's but there wasn't anything that stated it wouldn't be covered.

Surely they can't expect that people would only have one section replaced in a different colour/style as the rest of the worktop.

bigisi

Have you actually asked them what clause they're basing that advice on?

Aylesbury_Duck

bigisi wrote: »

Have you actually asked them what clause they're basing that advice on?

Absolutely. If you've read through the policy and can't find it, ask them to direct you to it.

Sea_Shell

Look for the phrase " matching items clause". The same would apply if , say, one part of dining room set were damaged, they wouldn't replace it all.

phill99

As above from Seashell. It is sometimes known as a 'continuity clause'. I have done insurance work where the insurers have only paid to paint say 2 pieces of skirting board in a room (as a result of water damage) but not the remainder as this hadn't been damaged.

missprice

Oh I have similar clause in my insurance.
From memory they used kitchen cabinets as the "example"
Something like any damaged kitchen cabinets (up to 8) will be replaced, if not matching any remaining cabinets after best efforts at matching, I can pay blah blah.

I actually have 22 cabinets in my kitchen so if my whole kitchen burnt out,the insurance will only pay for 8 so I didn't much worry.

I could be wrong about amount of cabinets replaced.