Contents Insurance

Gaz82

Hi,
I wanted to ask if anyone knew about like for like when claiming on my contents insurance.
Basically last week I lost a pair of expensive prescription glasses near to where I work . I contacted my insurance company to see if I was able to claim and they said this shouldn't be a problem just needed to provide a receipt from opticians and a report my loss submission which I emailed over.
Today 10 days after submitting my claim I contacted the insurance company  to find out if there has been any progress, they said they would call me back after speaking with the Opticians as the written receipt they gave me wasn't very good and they needed to verify some details which was fine.  So 20 mins I got a call back they said my claim was null and void because I had already brought replacement glasses which were considerably cheaper to one I claimed for ( what I could afford this time)  So basically what they are saying is I can't claim because glasses I replaced needs to be like for like and can't be less than the excess fee I would need to pay.  So am I correct in saying I would need to pay out another £388 for my claim to be valid. I didn't know this was the case, is this correct?

Sandtree

Who's the policy with?
Is it new for old?

Ordinarily your choice of replacement is irrelevant to the settlement

Gaz82

Thanks for your reply. The policy wasn't with this insurance company but I was directed to them by my insurers as they are the underwriters of the policy. I don't know for sure if it is new for old. suppose will need to check.

Sandtree

The underwriters are the insurance company/insurer... others in the supply chain are likely to be brokers, an MGA or some other distribution company

Thrugelmir

In essence are you expecting reimbursement of £388 that you haven't spent?  The receipt you submitted didn't match the amount of your claim. 

Gaz82

Thrugelmir said:

In essence are you expecting reimbursement of £388 that you haven't spent?  The receipt you submitted didn't match the amount of your claim. 

I don't quite understand what you mean. As I put in my original post I submitted a receipt from the Opticians for the Glasses which I lost to the cost of £388

mgfvvc

f I've understood you correctly, you have replaced the glasses for less than the excess. If you had paid more than the excess, I expect that they would have paid whatever you had spent, less the excess. In your case, if you had bought an identical pair for £388 and the excess was £250, they would have paid you £138 (£388-250). As you replaced the glasses for less than the excess, they probably consider whatever you spent to be the amount of the claim.
You seem to think that they should, under a like for like policy, pay the original cost regardless of whether you buy something different to replace it. I can't say that it's an unreasonable expectation, but generally it comes down to their terms and conditions.

lisyloo

What was the difference between the glasses.
e.g. was it something like coatings or was it just a cheaper design of frame.
Was the replacement an interim emergency pair? or a fully featured pair?
I am trying to establish if this is "like for like" or not. If there are missing features like coatings then you could argue not.

Gaz82

So I needed to buy a replacement pair as soon as possible due to needing them for reading and Driving. Replacement pair have same covering but are only £140 due to what I could afford this month. My excess is £150 so for what I can understand they are saying I can't claim because of difference between replacement pair cost and excess i can kind of understand what they are  saying however my original Claim was for the £388 pair which I lost ( possibly stolen as haven't been found). 

lisyloo

Your insurance is there to cover the cost of replacing what you've lost at todays prices.
If the price of an item goes up they guarantee to bear that cost (within policy limits) and vice versa if the cost of items goes down then they make a saving. So if they replaced a kitchen (for example) they'd pay for the same kitchen regardless of whether materials or labour had gone up or down in price.
So they will only cover the replacement cost of any item at current prices not the cost at a previous point in time.
It's easy with hindsight but you might have been better off getting a very cheap "emergency" pair  (or pairs of single vision if you need both) without any coatings/thining/features at all and then asking the insurance to replace your expensive pair because you could claim the emergency pair were not "like for like" in terms of features.
I forgot my reading glassses one day and to save me a return trip home I got specsavers to make me a very basic emergency pair for £25 the same day. There are low cost frames available.
If you feel your new ones are not "like for like"  then it's up to you to argue with your insurer as to why the replacement is not as good.
You need to first start engaging politely with your insurer, they should provide a justification. If you are not satisfied you can raise formal complaint.
You haven't really explained on here why the £140 are not equivalent to the £388 pair and you don't need to but you would have to justify that to the insurer. I'm guessing better designed frames in terms of aesthetics.
I would also point out that have a claim on your record counts against you not just next year but for a few years in terms of probably increased premiums.
So you have to think carefully about whether this is worth it for £238.
My gut feeling is probably not.