Insurer being awkward about claim
Comments
-
I'm really sorry to hear that chocoholic. Yes I think you should contact the ombudsman you have been treated terribly. My policy states new for old on replacements which includes jewellery. A ring which cost almost three thousand twenty years for example would be impossible to replace on a like for like basis today for the original purchase price. If I was only given the original purchase price and had to go to say ernest jones I would be very lucky if I got a quarter carat stone in white gold. I'm told that my insurer must provide enough so that I can buy a ring of the same stone carat and metal purity which would be impossible if I only received the original putchase cost less my excess too. I don't want to disclose who my insurer is on here because I'm concerned they could use it against me. If you bought a house for fifty thousand twenty years ago you certainly couldn't now and it's the same for jewellery too.
The point of insurance for specific valuable items e.g. jewellery is that you must insure them for an appropriate amount.
In chocaholic's situation, she insured a ring that had an insurance value of £1995 30 years ago at £1500! That's three-quarters of a 30 year old valuation!
I can't see the ombudsman being amenable to rule in her favour when she had valued the ring at £1500 and that's what the insurance are willing to pay out (less any excess).It's worth asking your insurer to confirm which items they have seen which are a like-for-like match to the ones which were lost / stolen, however it would have been up to you to ensure that the valuations on the policy were up to date I'm afraid.
It's your job to make sure you're adequately covered for the items you wish to insure, not your insurer's job.
This ^^^^
FWIW, I think it's wrong (I'm not saying it's not within their rights) for your insurer to insist you buy a replacement from a specific jeweller.
I lost my engagement ring over 30 years ago, it was an antique solitaire and was adequately insured.
IIRC, I was told to find a ring that I wanted and the insurers would arrange payment.
Question to Bath cube:
Just curious - did the valuation specify the colour, carat and clarity of your ring?0 -
I'm told that my insurer must provide enough so that I can buy a ring of the same stone carat and metal purity which would be impossible if I only received the original putchase cost less my excess too.
Your insurer must provide enough so that you are in the same position as you were pre-loss WITHIN YOUR POLICY LIMITS. If I could put that in multi-coloured 50pt font with fireworks coming off it that still wouldn't be enough emphasis.
Your insurance policy is a contract between yourself & your insurer for how the insurer will indemnify you (i.e., put you back in the same position should an insurable event occur). You are signing this contract & agreeing to it; it is up to you to ensure that this contract is suitable for your needs if you should ever need to claim. That's why you're always given 14 days to cancel it at no charge in case you find it not to be suitable.
FoS is a wonderful service which prioritises fairness above all else. Your insurer has acted perfectly fairly in this case I'm afraid.0 -
See here
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/121/121-under-insurance.html#cs6
And in particular read case study 121-6, at the bottom of the page, which seems rather similar to Chocaholic's case - and provided the insurer made clear to the customer that they needed to ensure the jewellery was insured for an adequate amount the Ombudsman would be unlikely to uphold a complaint.0 -
Chocoholic here is a contact number for the financial ombudsman 0800 027 4567. My claim has been ongoing for over nine months and I may well have to involve them myself. Wishing you well.0
-
Oops it's 0800 023 4567 not 027.0
-
The insurers aren't offering - they are paying you the amount you chose to insure them for (despite knowing it was too low). I wouldn't be optimistic about an ombudsman complaint.chocaholics wrote: »Thanks but they are meant to be replacement value but I wont get even one ring with what they are offering, and yes I was very careless but had no idea that the value would have gone up so much. My own fault as you said.0 -
I called into a local branch of f hinds yesterday to see if I could determine the quality of some of their items compared to the ones which were stolen. The manager was quick to assure me that higher quality diamonds compared to those in the window display were available to order depending on the sum involved. I have taken that into consideration but I also noticed that the earrings which could be of a similar style to the ones I had were no where in comparison with them.mine where very high quality mappin and webb whilst the nearest in style from hinds were flimsy and the stones not as well cut and set.0
-
Polly cat no the valuation wasn't based on the three c's of my ring.0
-
When I specified the diamond ring I was asked the carat weight and metal purity. But they did not ask me to specify the quality of the stone eg colour grading. I also wasn't asked if I had a separate valuation following the years since the ring was originally purchased. They only asked what shape and size and setting the diamond had plus the original purchase cost and nothing else. I was advised to take a photo of myself wearing those items to help in the event I needed to make a claim which I did so.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards