broken lock and home insurance

Enkei

Hi - last week I accidentally broke the night-lock as I was rushing out of home to go to work. The little pointy bit that you push down to set the latch back just broke in my hands, the lock became unusable and we were locked in, I had to be in work and kids had to go to school etc. We called a local locksmith who had to drill to the existing lock and replace it. I have since contacted my home insurance policy (John Lewis Insurance) as the working on the policy states: " Accidental damage to the locks of, or loss of the keys to, safe and alarms in your home. We will pay for the replacement of the lock mechanism or change the locks. Accidental damage means sudden, unexpected and visible damage which has not been caused on purpose.". However I was immediately told that they would only pay if I could demonstrate the problem to the lock was NOT caused by "mechanical failure" or "wear and tear". First off the additional conditions were not part of any documentation in my possession nor I was made aware of them in the past, does that have any relevance? Second, the old lock was, up to that moment, in perfect working order, it had been put in place by the previous owner approximately 8 years ago. Thirdly, I do not know exactly what went wrong, I still have the broken lock (or what is left of it), I am not sure how I will be able to prove anything to the 'expert' that will visit us next week. Has anyone had this a similar experience? Any suggestions/comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

davidwatts

In terms of the wording those exclusions are fairly standard and reasonable and are also evident in the JL policy wording I had a look at online. Mechanical faults are listed as an exclusion next to where the cover is stated and there is a general policy exclusion for wear and tear. That's also implied by the cover stating "sudden and unexpected".

In terms of the damage and how you prove it meets their conditions, that could be a tricky one. It's not an obvious type of damage you would expect to a lock that wasn't either defective or subject to a lot of wear and tear.

I assume it's worth claiming once you take into account the policy excess!

Might be worth asking your locksmith for an experienced view on this. He may say it happens, just wear and tear (supporting the insurer view) or that he thinks the lock was fine and it's genuine accidental damage as a result of you applying unintended excessive force whilst in a hurry.

sal_III

You have already reported it to JW and it's on file, so you might as well make a claim and see what the verdict is. Don't get ahead of the events.

Personally I would have compared the costs incurred with the policy excess before contacting the insurer. In most cases it won't be worth it, but only you know your exact circumstances.

garth549

For future reference it was probably a mistake to even contact your insurers regarding this. A lock generally doesn't cost more than a couple of hundred pounds to replace which is probably not much higher than your excess (unless there's little/no excess for this)

You'll have to declare this as a loss for 3-5 years now so you'll probably end up paying the cost of the replacement lock again in additional premiums.

In general I wouldn't advise anyone to even contact their insurers regarding claiming anything less than £300 after deducting your excess. Eg Anything below £500 total if you had a £200 excess

Enkei

I never buy content insurance on principle to be honest, we did it this year as my partner insisted. It looks like I will be proven right in my position unfortunately as, from the initial phone call and your replies, they will not pay. Having 'locks' added to the cover is simply misleading (but then misleading customers is how they make money, right?). How does a lock break if not through 'wear and tear' or 'mechanical failure' or again 'intentional damage'? The should just say they cover the loss of keys and I should have just reported that. So tomorrow I will meet the insurance 'expert' and I will have to 'prove to him' that neither of the above apply. travesty, pure and simple. In any case. thank you for your replies. I will not buy home insurance again or I will ask for the cover for locks to be excluded.

eddddy

Enkei wrote: »

I will not buy home insurance again or I will ask for the cover for locks to be excluded.

A lot of people would say that home contents insurance is really for disasters - like major burglaries, fire, floods, huge escapes of water, etc

It's not economic to make small claims.

If you make a small claim, once you've paid the excess and the increased premiums, you'll probably be worse off.

Aretnap

One obvious way in which you could cause accidental damage to a lock would be absent mindedly only putting your key half way in, turning it and breaking half the key off in the lock. Another would be some sort of impact to the door or to the lock itself. However if the lock simply breaks in normal use with no obvious cause then the natural presumption would be that it was caused by an existing defect and/or wear and tear to the lock itself, rather than an external factor such as an accident. It's perfectly normal for defective items and/or wear and tear not to be covered by insurance, which is really there to cover damage caused by unexpected one off events.

Dangermac

Enkei wrote: »

I never buy content insurance on principle to be honest, we did it this year as my partner insisted. It looks like I will be proven right in my position unfortunately as, from the initial phone call and your replies, they will not pay. Having 'locks' added to the cover is simply misleading (but then misleading customers is how they make money, right?). How does a lock break if not through 'wear and tear' or 'mechanical failure' or again 'intentional damage'? The should just say they cover the loss of keys and I should have just reported that. So tomorrow I will meet the insurance 'expert' and I will have to 'prove to him' that neither of the above apply. travesty, pure and simple. In any case. thank you for your replies. I will not buy home insurance again or I will ask for the cover for locks to be excluded.

The lock may well be covered - depends on whether it was simply wear & tear, or Accidental Damage. Household policies do not generally cover wear & tear.

Is the value of the damage really worth claiming, bearing in mind policy excess and potential premium increase? Some smaller losses are not worth claiming for.

Whether you purchase insurance in the future or not will clearly depend on your view of risk v premium spend. But to not buy insurance again based on a fit of pique is probably not wise.

DM

Korkyb

Enkei wrote: »

I never buy content insurance on principle to be honest, we did it this year as my partner insisted.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what principle you mean by this.


As has been said previously in this thread deciding to buy insurance (or not) is a balance of risk vs cost of premium.


I went without contents insurance when I was younger as I had little in the way of possessions but now I'm (much) older I'd struggle to replace all the stuff in my house were it to go up in flames which could happen no matter how careful you are.

surreysaver

eddddy wrote: »

A lot of people would say that home contents insurance is really for disasters - like major burglaries, fire, floods, huge escapes of water, etc

To be honest ,that's my view. I've never claimed on insurance (touch wood!), I just pay to replace if anything breaks or gets lost.
With the increase in crime, and flooding in the area a couple of years ago, I was expecting my premium to increase when it was due, but it actually went down.