Replacement with insurance policy

photoman79

Hello

I dropped my camera and it is not repairable.  I originally bought the camera secondhand and was in 'like new' condition.  The insurance company have offered a replacement used item however I believe the policy is to replace with a new for old, do I have to accept another used camera?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

You need to clarify what the policy says specifically regarding old for new and if there’s any exceptions for things that were purchased 2nd hand.

If it is old for new without exceptions ask them why they aren’t replacing old for new and ask for their complaints procedure if you don’t get a satisfactory answer  

diystarter7

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

You need to clarify what the policy says specifically regarding old for new and if there’s any exceptions for things that were purchased 2nd hand.

If it is old for new without exceptions ask them why they aren’t replacing old for new and ask for their complaints procedure if you don’t get a satisfactory answer  

Exactly that. We don't do accidental insurance unless offered free but did years ago when we were younger and more easily led IMO. Then I noted a cheaper policy but the small print gave it away, it was not new for old.

DullGreyGuy

photoman79 said:

I dropped my camera and it is not repairable.  I originally bought the camera secondhand and was in 'like new' condition.  The insurance company have offered a replacement used item however I believe the policy is to replace with a new for old, do I have to accept another used camera?

What type of insurance is it? Home insurance is often new for old but not always. Gadget insurance is normally like for like. 

Ultimately read your policy, the default is like for like. 

sheramber

But you didn't buy it new.

if they replaced it with new anybody could get an old or broken camera and 'drop it' then claim a new one.

pinkshoes

photoman79 said:

Hello

I dropped my camera and it is not repairable.  I originally bought the camera secondhand and was in 'like new' condition.  The insurance company have offered a replacement used item however I believe the policy is to replace with a new for old, do I have to accept another used camera?

You'll need to check your insurance details.

Most have "new for old" terms, but this is for things that have been stolen or lost in a fire etc...

There is then an option for "accidental" damage insurance but this is generally not new for old but replaces like for like. 

You're having a camera replaced with an identical camera so I don't see the issue. If you do have a "new for old" term in your insurance, then you would have to provide the proof of purchase of the new camera to get it replaced, which you would not be able to do as you purchased it second hand.

TELLIT01

It'll be a brilliant way to get new camera gear if the OP gets new in this instance.  Go to your local camera shop, buy the cheapest 2nd hand version of the camera availble, then drop it and claim new.  That certainly isn't the intention of insurance.

DullGreyGuy

pinkshoes said:
There is then an option for "accidental" damage insurance but this is generally not new for old but replaces like for like. 

Can you point to one Home policy where this is the case @pinkshoes (that AD is indemnity but all other perils is new for old)?

DullGreyGuy

TELLIT01 said:

It'll be a brilliant way to get new camera gear if the OP gets new in this instance.  Go to your local camera shop, buy the cheapest 2nd hand version of the camera availble, then drop it and claim new.  That certainly isn't the intention of insurance.

It is how it is intended to work, if you accidentally drop it... but you have to deduct your excess from the settlement and pay increase premiums for the next 3-5 years. Obviously if you "accidentally" drop it then you come up against all the investment that insurers have made in counterfraud... you may get away with it (but as above, unless its a damned good camera its not likely to be economical to claim) or their voice stress analyzers may detect anomalies that result in the claim being declined for fraud, a CIFAS marker (and that's consequences for your banking etc) and the policy void. You then for life have to declare you've had an insurance policy cancelled for fraud... you can guess the impact that has on your premiums and so you better make sure its a Red10 camera or such to make the fraud worth the risk

TELLIT01

I have had to make claims for photographic equipment twice over the years, plus claims for building damage on others, and there was certainly no evidence that my premiums increased due to the claim.  In fact, after the most recent building claim my premium actually dropped substantially the following year and has only seen marginal increases since.

DullGreyGuy

TELLIT01 said:

I have had to make claims for photographic equipment twice over the years, plus claims for building damage on others, and there was certainly no evidence that my premiums increased due to the claim.  In fact, after the most recent building claim my premium actually dropped substantially the following year and has only seen marginal increases since.

Each risk is priced individually and each insurer has its own pricing rules. 

For the majority, premiums will increase post a claim, if it werent the case there would be no point insurers asking what your claims history is like.  There are many complaints in the Insurance forum that someone has made a small claim and then found premiums have increased by more than the claim cost the following year.

Looking at the example of 1 person can give very misleading results, sometimes intentionally by insurers. Looking at motor insurance at renewal, people were really happy when their insurance was about the same as last year however your car is a year older, worth less, you've more experience with it, more experience driving etc and so in theory your premium should go down really... pricewalking in later years was hidden by people's expectations -v- what should have been happening.