Insuring jewellery (wedding, engagement and forever friend rings)

LoopyJellington

Hi
I am just renewing my contents insurance and am astounded (not in a good way) that I have to provide proof of ownership of my rings.
One ring is my wedding ring and the amazing people at JJ Rudell in Wolverhampton have been able to find the original hand written receipt dating back to March 2003. It gives the name of my deceased husband as the purchaser so I'm hoping they'll accept that as ownership as I was still married to him when he died.
The other 2 rings (one an engagement ring, one a forever ring) were his mother's rings, both made by JJ Rudell back in the 50s. They were commissioned by my father-in-law for his wife (my husband's mother). When we got engaged Rich gave them to me. 
The snag - Saga are saying they need receipts of the rings and proof my husband gave them to me with his father's consent as they were his after his wife died.
Have you EVER heard the like? How many people are walking around wearing 'gifted' jewellery with proof of ownership and receipts, especially when it's heirloom jewellery? 
I'd love to know if this is correct or a quirk of the Saga company. 
If it's correct my jewellery has never been actually insured even though it has always been declared as separate items on our policies year in, year out.
Thanks for any advise.

luci

LoopyJellington said:

Hi
I am just renewing my contents insurance and am astounded (not in a good way) that I have to provide proof of ownership of my rings.
One ring is my wedding ring and the amazing people at JJ Rudell in Wolverhampton have been able to find the original hand written receipt dating back to March 2003. It gives the name of my deceased husband as the purchaser so I'm hoping they'll accept that as ownership as I was still married to him when he died.
The other 2 rings (one an engagement ring, one a forever ring) were his mother's rings, both made by JJ Rudell back in the 50s. They were commissioned by my father-in-law for his wife (my husband's mother). When we got engaged Rich gave them to me. 
The snag - Saga are saying they need receipts of the rings and proof my husband gave them to me with his father's consent as they were his after his wife died.
Have you EVER heard the like? How many people are walking around wearing 'gifted' jewellery with proof of ownership and receipts, especially when it's heirloom jewellery? 
I'd love to know if this is correct or a quirk of the Saga company. 
If it's correct my jewellery has never been actually insured even though it has always been declared as separate items on our policies year in, year out.
Thanks for any advise.

Any time I've come across having to provide proof of ownership, it has suggested having a valuation detailing the items or photos of you wearing them. @MyRealNameToo will be able to advise further.

MyRealNameToo

LoopyJellington said:

I am just renewing my contents insurance and am astounded (not in a good way) that I have to provide proof of ownership of my rings.
One ring is my wedding ring and the amazing people at JJ Rudell in Wolverhampton have been able to find the original hand written receipt dating back to March 2003. It gives the name of my deceased husband as the purchaser so I'm hoping they'll accept that as ownership as I was still married to him when he died.
The other 2 rings (one an engagement ring, one a forever ring) were his mother's rings, both made by JJ Rudell back in the 50s. They were commissioned by my father-in-law for his wife (my husband's mother). When we got engaged Rich gave them to me. 
The snag - Saga are saying they need receipts of the rings and proof my husband gave them to me with his father's consent as they were his after his wife died.
Have you EVER heard the like? How many people are walking around wearing 'gifted' jewellery with proof of ownership and receipts, especially when it's heirloom jewellery? 
I'd love to know if this is correct or a quirk of the Saga company. 
If it's correct my jewellery has never been actually insured even though it has always been declared as separate items on our policies year in, year out.
Thanks for any advise.

How much are the rings individually?

How did the matter come up? Something on the quote and buy process on their website or it told you to phone them or... ?

Most insurers will allow you add whatever you want to the policy, as long as it's in their risk appetites, and won't ask for anything up front at all. If a claim happens at a later date the insurable interest, proof of ownership etc are then dealt with at that point. Obviously in theory that means you could be paying to insurer a £10,000 watch for 9 months only to find at the point of claim you have no insurable interest. 

Some policies out there offer guaranteed valuations, in these cases evidence is asked for up front as its problematic to value a vintage Rolex if all you have is a receipt from 1951 and a few grainy partial photos. 

Saga are an intermediary though they do have their own insurer on their panel too. Traditionally brokers would try to be helpful/friendly/add value given ultimately they will be a middleman in the process between you and the insurer in the event of a claim and certainly I've had some ask if I have a recent valuation of items etc. Most brokers are non-advisory these days for mass market consumer and as such most have stopped doing things that could be considered advice (its a major reg breach to give advice in sales if you are non-advisory). 

At point of claim then yes, asking for a receipt is the normal default first question but as you say not everyone has receipts, thermal paper (many receipts re printed on) goes black over time so even if you had the receipt it may no longer be legible now. As such other evidence is asked for. 

It's not black and white what will be asked for, it's all about building up a picture. For example you have a policyholder who claims to have bought a £15,000 Rolex last week and it was stolen from their locker in the gym (have seen the identical claim). They can't produce a receipt, they can't produce a bank statement showing the transaction as they say they paid cash in money they've saved up under their pillow over the years. You can see they are a shop assistant in Tesco, the watch makes up 50% of their total contents, everything else you see when you go to do an interview is unbranded and in poor state of repair. 

On the flip side you have a well off couple claiming for accidental damage to a £1,000 ring. They dont have receipts but have sent in the damaged ring, photos over the last 20 years showing her wearing the ring. On visiting the home is affluent, both are doctors, they have a large range of jewellery, much more expensive than this ring, with receipt for more recent purchases and some older ones. 

Which do you think the insurer is going to have issues with and which do you think they will accept as a legitimate claim?

LoopyJellington

It's a sorry state of affairs for people in my shoes.
I'm not able to ask my dead husband, dead father-in-law or the mother in law I never met. 
Looking back through old photos most night-out photos focus on our faces. The others are either outdoor photos or holiday photos when I wouldn't be wearing such lovely rings.
I've been directed to the Assay Office in B'ham for up to date valuations and to a couple of independent jewellery insurers. Fingers crossed or I might as well lock them in a safe and bury them in a field 🤷🏻‍♀️

LightFlare

Your experience would be interesting if we ever tried to insure my wife’s engagement ring

The diamond came from an inherited mens signet rig and is now in its 3rd different setting 

Probing that we owned it would be nigh on impossible I suspect

MyRealNameToo

LoopyJellington said:

It's a sorry state of affairs for people in my shoes.
I'm not able to ask my dead husband, dead father-in-law or the mother in law I never met. 
Looking back through old photos most night-out photos focus on our faces. The others are either outdoor photos or holiday photos when I wouldn't be wearing such lovely rings.
I've been directed to the Assay Office in B'ham for up to date valuations and to a couple of independent jewellery insurers. Fingers crossed or I might as well lock them in a safe and bury them in a field 🤷🏻‍♀️

Where people normally have problems is substantiating what the ring was with no receipt, no valuation etc when it comes to theft/loss claims. There is a vast difference in valuation between 9ct ring with a 0.8ct uncertified diamond -v- a 18ct ring with a 1ct diamond certified to be IF and colour D even if seen separately most would say they are pretty much the same.  Clearly losses for damage are generally easier given you have the salvage that can be assessed. 

Remember that if they are kept in your home they have to be included in your Home insurance even if you have another policy however you can avoid having them in your Personal Possessions if you have another policy. Mass market consumer insurance doesnt support the option to include/exclude cover for items - high net worth does but even if you exclude your Rembrandt or £500k Cartier necklace they will still add to your premiums (just not as much) as someone seeing Minerva hanging in your lounge is more likely to break in (covered by your Home) and take other stuff at the same time as the painting. 

Saga are being unusual asking for things up front, I assume they are trying to be helpful and avoid issues at claims stage but most only come across the issues after the incident that causes the loss has already happened. 

From my experience of valuations, there are two mechanisms of charging, one is a fixed fee and the other is a percentage of the valuation (sometimes with a floor). Neither are great as the former is expensive if everything turns out to be costume jewellery and the later very expensive if what you thought was a paste necklace turns out to be organic diamonds... happened to a friend who'd agreed a no minimum 3% fee and found an item was real and worth over £150k - she'd been wearing it partying for years having been told it was costume.