Insurance will only replace a small percent of laminate flooring

Mf1979

I'm after some advice please.

I've had to put in an insurance claim after I drilled through a water pipe, which then caused water damage to our laminate flooring. I'm covered as I have accidental damage cover, but I'm having an issue with what they will cover. To set the scene, the laminate flooring that has been damaged is in the hall, but the same laminate covers around 75% of the downstairs floor, with only the kitchen being different. The laminate runs consistently, without any joining strips/door bars at all so it flows seamlessly. Now the insurance company are saying they will only replace the flooring in the hall (around 20%) and that we'll need to have joining strips put in. We don't want to do this as I think they look unsightly, create trip hazards and ultimately not what we currently have. Also it would mean that we would then have different flooring, again not what we have or want. 

Do you think I have a case to ask for them to replace all the laminate flooring, so its like for like or am I wasting my time?

Sandtree

Does your insurance have matching set cover?

Most policies sold on price don't and therefore they are only liable for the damaged parts... if your policy does then there is a strong argument that the full "set" needs replacing including the undamaged parts.

Mf1979

Thanks for the reply.
No it doesn't include matching sets cover, but I don't see this as a matching set as it's all one continuous floor. I understand the matching sets from say a 3 piece sofa set, where you have individual chairs, but the laminate is all joined together with no joining strips. Obviously I'm biased in my favor but I don't see that this is a matching set, just one continuous floor covering the majority of the downstairs floor.

tacpot12

I tend to agree that this is not a "matching set" argument. 

Your argument is and should probably be that "the floor" is damaged so "the floor" needs to be replaced; it is one floor. Their argument might include that you are obliged to limit your losses, e.g. by agreeing to have the threshold strips but I agree they look unsightly, but I think they are stretching this a bit far. 

You might get further  if you agree that you will pay half the cost and they will pay the other half - assuming that their offer is currently a lot less than half the cost of replacing everything.   

If you want them to pay for everything, you will probalby have to make a complaint and then take it to the Financial Ombudsman.

Sandtree

Mf1979 said:

Thanks for the reply.
No it doesn't include matching sets cover, but I don't see this as a matching set as it's all one continuous floor. I understand the matching sets from say a 3 piece sofa set, where you have individual chairs, but the laminate is all joined together with no joining strips. Obviously I'm biased in my favor but I don't see that this is a matching set, just one continuous floor covering the majority of the downstairs floor.

It is a matching set because your floor is made up of many boards not one single piece of wood.

In these sorts of circumstances where the damage has only been to part of a set the ombudsman will often suggest a 50% contribution for the replacement of the remainder is an appropriate resolution... had there been a physical break like a doorbar etc then there would be no contribution to replacing the rest.

See Decision Reference DRN4427536 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

The same logic is applied to tiles, kitchen units etc... matching set cover is invaluable but people buy cheap policies and because its adds a lot to claim costs its one of the first things to go to reduce prices

Mf1979

Thanks for the comments and information, the decision reference letter made an interesting read and if they were to offer to split the replacement cost 50/50 I'd probably be happy with that as it seems a fair compromise.

I have to be honest I wasn't fully aware of the matching sets clause's until I needed to make this claim (even though it is there in black and white in the terms) so will be something that I try to avoid going forward. 

The insurance have made an offer but only based on replacing the small section of flooring, so I'll go back to them and ask a few questions and see how it goes.

Thanks again for all the input and I'll see how I get on.

Sandtree

Mf1979 said:

I have to be honest I wasn't fully aware of the matching sets clause's until I needed to make this claim (even though it is there in black and white in the terms) so will be something that I try to avoid going forward. 

Unfortunately, and in part due to site like this, we are encouraged to buy as cheap as possible but the reality is that cheap comes with a cost and that typically quality (which in insurance terms tends to mean level of coverage). Its clearly better to buy on value than price but that requires education etc and doesnt get you as much commission. 

Home is actually a fairly complex product and there are a number of features that vary between insurers that many people probably dont look at:

Matching Set - replacing undamaged items if only part is damaged
Trace & Access - cost of finding leaks
Valuables - an inner limit thats often a percentage of the overall limit
Valuables definition - traditionally jewelry, art, precious metals etc but some expand to include TVs, computers etc
Single article limit - maximum paid for 1 item thats not been explicitly named can range from £750 to £15,000
All Risks -v- Specified Perils - former covers a loss unless explicitly excluded whereas the former only covers a loss if it can be shown to originate from an insured peril

The list goes on but those that don't blindly renew with their existing insurer instead just buy who's ever at the top of the aggregator price list.

Mf1979

I always use comparison sites and always go with what I class as a big name (currently this is with the AA) and try to avoid what I think are the budget options or companies that I've never heard of. It probably doesn't make much difference just the smaller companies get/charge less commission.

It's certainly opened my eyes and something that I will look into more at my next renewal and actually look into the fine print. May be a bit of an expensive lesson learnt for me but I'm guessing it could have been a lot worse.

Thanks again for all the great advice and information.