Home Contents Insurance claim

eco6sps

Please help

I have a home contents policy with Tesco and i am making a claim for a piece of jewellery worth about £5000. Tesco want to replace the item of jewellery, however i would prefer the cash sum that it was insured for .

Does anyone know if i can insist on the cash alternative from the insurers ? I have been told that this is the case but i dont know who to ask to confirm.

Any help would be good.

janian

Hello eco6sps

I am in a similar situation. I lost my camera which I paid a total of £483.00 in 2003 for the camera and accessories. I have the receipts and I am being offered a replacement model by the insurer. I have worked out that the value of this and the accessories which I have been offered are way below the original price I paid. Added to this I have also paid £50.00 excess. I would also like to know same as you whether I can ask my insurers for a cash payment of £483.00 plus inflation since 2003. I hope someone can help.

*MF*

@eco6sps

Extract: ... (check if this matches your own policy - terms and conditions can change)

4 Basis of Claims Settlement

1. For any one item of Personal Possessions or part of a set lost or damaged We will at Our option:

1. pay the cost of replacing the item or part as new; or

2. replace the item or part as new; or

3. pay the cost of repairing the item or part; or

4. make a cash payment which will be the price We could have replaced it for using Our own suppliers.

From here:

http://www.tescofinance.com/personal/finance/insurance/homeins/policy-doc.html#f5

There are options - but note who the policy terms say has the right to exercise the options and if a cash settlement is chosen - how the amount involved is calculated.

Oscar_The_Grouch

In response to the first post, you can ask, but you cannot insist. What you have to remember, however, is that if Tesco agree to give you the cash they will only give you the amount they would have paid for the replacement item less your policy excess.

Jewellery has a mark-up of over 100% on the trade material cost. This means that if you buy a diamond ring for £5,000, the cost of the diamond and metal will have been less than £2,500. You have to add the cost of making the ring, but this is not huge; possibly 20% of the cost.

Essentially, if they offer you more than £3,000 for a £5,000 item of jewellery you have done well.

With regard to the second post, your insurers have to replace your camera with one of the same SPECIFICATION, not PRICE.

janian

Thanks for your replies. I rang my insurance company today and as Oscar the Grouch states they have confirmed that they will replace with a same spec camera but not to the same value. So I paid £483.00 for my camera and accessories in 2003 plus £50.00 excess.The total value of the new camera and accessories is around £270.00 although the spec is as good if not better. However, in financial terms I am looking at a loss of around £263.00. My insurance premiums are about £360.00 per annum and I havent made a claim for over 20 years. If you think about it I would have been much better off with no contents insurance and replacing the camera myself. I would welcome any comments on this. PS the insurance company are even arguing over the spare camera batteries which we purchased which they say they wont provide.

moonrakerz

janian wrote: »

However, in financial terms I am looking at a loss of around £263.00.

I don't follow your logic there; the most you can say you "lost" is your excess. For that you have brand new camera, which even you admit may be better than your original !

If you don't want to pay £360 p.a. for insurance - don't. But don't come back here bleating about being short changed when your house burns down.That is what insurance is all about.

Oscar_The_Grouch

Agree with moonrakerz. Home insurance is there to cover you for disasters - just ask anyone who was flooded last year and has had to have the whole of their downstairs ripped out and replaced.

Let's also look at the other side of the coin; if you buy a painting for £500 and the artist dies, the value of that painting goes up. Would you be happy with your insurers telling you they will only pay £500 "because that's how much you paid for it" when it was worth £5,000 when some evil little git breaks into your home and steals it? I think not.

Your camera was worth £483 when you bought it. As time has moved on, technology has improved and it's not worth that any more.

Welcome to the real world.

janian

Thanks for your pleasant replies. I stated I'd welcome comments not aggression. Whatever way you look at it I have still lost out in monetary terms. I think I am too much influenced by my brother-in-law who has survived to the age of 71 with no home insurance. He says its worked out cheaper just to replace items as and when. However, he obviously he has not been at risk from flood etc. Lucky maybe but a good risk thats paid off for him.

moonrakerz

janian wrote: »

I stated I'd welcome comments not aggression. Whatever way you look at it I have still lost out in monetary terms.

1. You did not get "aggression" - you got honest comment
2. You did not "lose out" financially - you lost a five year old camera worth next to nothing today and got a brand new camera instead - and still you complain !

Oscar_The_Grouch

Janian, no one here has been aggressive to you; as moonrakerz says, they have simply been giving you an honest comment. If you don't like it, you don't have to pay attention to it.

I am truly sorry that you feel you have lost out financially, but insurance is not there to provide you with "better than new". If your camera can be replaced with a new equivalent for £270, then it should be. If you were provided with a replacement for £483, how much better would that be than the one you lost? What makes you so special that when you lose an item you should receive better than you lost?

Once again for luck; Insurance is there to put you back in the position you were in before the loss, not a position of "better than new".

janian

I dont think I've said that I am special? However, I still stick with my basic principle that if you lose £483.00 then you should gain £483.00 especially when you have all the receipts to prove it. Still its the way of the world I suppose.