Jewellery away from home / esure not paying out

We lost a necklace whilst away from home recently, and the insurer is currently saying they wont pay out. They say an "endorsement" which states jewellery has to be in a safe at all times unless worn, is sufficient for them to decide they won't cover the loss. .

The fact is that the jewellery was either in the home safe, the hotel safe and carried in between (where the item got lost) in a box in the luggage. So nothing more could have been done to comply with their endorsement.

Anyone got any tips or ideas how I can challenge the insurer?

To me it seems to suggest that if their endorsement is 100% adhered one can never properly take anything away from home, which surely automatically prejudices all claims. Rendering their cover of it as null and void and surely not legally or ethically viable?

Regards,

Jonathan

Comments

  • JonnieD wrote: »
    We lost a necklace whilst away from home recently, and the insurer is currently saying they wont pay out. They say an "endorsement" which states jewellery has to be in a safe at all times unless worn, is sufficient for them to decide they won't cover the loss. .

    The fact is that the jewellery was either in the home safe, the hotel safe and carried in between (where the item got lost) in a box in the luggage. So nothing more could have been done to comply with their endorsement.

    Anyone got any tips or ideas how I can challenge the insurer?

    To me it seems to suggest that if their endorsement is 100% adhered one can never properly take anything away from home, which surely automatically prejudices all claims. Rendering their cover of it as null and void and surely not legally or ethically viable?

    Regards,

    Jonathan

    So the endorsement states the jewellery must be worn if not in a safe, and it was lost when not being worn, or in a safe?

    Seems clear cut to me...
  • More could have been done to comply with the endorsement. Specifically: The item should have been worn and not transported in a box in luggage.

    It may be possible that, had the item been worn, you could have avoided the loss entirely. That would have been the insurers intention i.e. they know that jewellery is less likely lost when kept in a safe or worn, but is regularly lost when people transport jewellery in their luggage or don't take time to secure their jewellery in a safe.

    These types of clauses are common with high value items of jewellery (what is high value is subjective though dependent on the insurers terms and conditions here) and I think it would be a stretch to say such an endorsement makes the cover null and void.

    However clear I find the endorsement, given its potentially onerous nature, the insurer should have drawn your attention to the endorsement and directed your attention to this through prominent language on the schedule and/or covering letter. Or, alternatively, discussed this with you over the telephone if that is how you purchased the policy.

    Even though I am sure this would have been a non advised sale, and you therefore take responsibility for checking the policy, you potentially could try and challenge the endorsement if it was "tucked away" in the "small print." That could be unfair, but if you had conceded to the insurers that you were aware of the endorsement then this would likely fail.

    Alternatively if the language is ambiguous then you could challenge the refusal on that basis but, again, from what you have said above it doesn't sound particularly confusing but I appreciate I say that as an insurance professional so my perspective is potentially skewed here.

    Best of luck.
    Lloyds broker working in Private Clients and Property Owners.


    Looking to help and be helped.
  • kingstreet
    kingstreet Posts: 38,665
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Forumite
    Did you take the personal possessions cover add-on which insures high value items away from home and the endorsement relates to that or to the standard cover?
    Personal Possessions Insurance

    If you’re never without your mobile phone – or like catching up with shows on your tablet every morning during the long commute, you might want to consider adding personal possessions insurance to your current buildings or contents policy. While your contents insurance protects these items in your house, the cover stops as soon as you take them outside the boundaries of your home.

    Why is personal possessions insurance important?

    An optional extra that can be added to your buildings or contents insurance, personal possessions offers protection for your personal effects when they are removed from your home. If an item of yours is lost, stolen, or damaged while away from your home, personal possessions insurance would allow you to replace that item.

    Most of us don’t realise how much the items we carry around with us every day are worth. A tablet and mobile phone could be worth several hundred pounds by themselves, let alone any money we may have in our bags and pockets.

    Please note that we do not offer standalone personal possessions insurance; it is available only as an add-on to our contents and buildings and contents policies.

    What does esure personal possessions insurance cover?
    esure personal possessions insurance covers most items that you’d take with you out of the house. These items can be anything from mobile phones to jewellery, or even items like your clothes and bike. We also cover any cash up to £750 that you might have with you.

    We could also cover your mobile phone if it’s damaged by liquid, so if it gets soaked in your bag by a bottle of water, don’t worry you can still make a claim.

    It’s worth noting that any item worth more than £1499, or any bikes that are worth £500 or more, need to be declared to us. These are known as specified items.

    https://www.esure.com/home-insurance/personal-possessions

    It strikes me a complaint and FOS referral is going to have a better chance if personal possessions cover had been taken.
    I am a mortgage broker. You should note that this site doesn't check my status as a Mortgage Adviser, so you need to take my word for it. This signature is here as I follow MSE's Mortgage Adviser Code of Conduct. Any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice. Please do not send PMs asking for one-to-one-advice, or representation.
  • The first paragraph quoted by Kingstreet could hardly be clearer. You either paid for the additional cover or you didn't.


    Did you perhaps buy this of the internet without reading what you were buying?
  • Old_Lifer wrote: »
    The first paragraph quoted by Kingstreet could hardly be clearer. You either paid for the additional cover or you didn't.

    True, but the OP suggest they did and that a restrictive endorsement was applied (in safe or worn only). So, there are other considerations like was the endorsement applied or not, did the insurer take sufficient steps to draw attention to the restriction in cover, is the endorsement a fair contract term and, if so, is it being applied fairly in this case.

    There are two types of Personal Possessions cover, Unspecified (covers all relevant items up to a prescribed limit, e.g. £2,000) and Specified for individual items that exceed the relevant limit. It would be unusual for an endorsement such as this to be applied to anything other than a high value item, e.g. £5k plus. It would be interesting to know the item value and how it was covered.

    The implication of the endorsement is that the item is only covered while worn or in a safe. Reasonable enough when one is at home (e.g. only take the item out in order to wear it) but a little restrictive if you want to wear it when staying away from home. The implication would be either wear the item when travelling or accept that you run the risk of anything happening to it, or that you are effectively not "allowed" to take it with you.

    If it could be clearly demonstrated that it would be unreasonable to wear the item whilst travelling and that it was safer by being in the luggage then you may have a case for the application of the endorsement being unreasonable (but nowhere near as strong as if you weren't adequately informed of it in the first place). I can easily imagine an insurer wanting to know why a high value necklace was being worn for the duration of a long journey on public transport had it been lost in such circumstances! :)

    Bottom line, if you don't like their decision then you'll need to complain and be prepared to exercise your FOS rights. Key points being the extent to which you were made aware of the restriction in cover and how reasonable it is to apply it to this claim. The counter argument being that you decided to run the risk yourself by not either leaving the item at home in the safe or wearing it for the entire duration of the journey!

    If possible, post the full wording of the endorsement so we can double check that it is being applied correctly.
  • lisyloo
    lisyloo Posts: 29,555
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    davidwatts wrote: »
    There are two types of Personal Possessions cover, Unspecified (covers all relevant items up to a prescribed limit, e.g. £2,000) and Specified for individual items that exceed the relevant limit.

    Isn’t there are third type provided by hiscox, axa advanced etc. that covers items up to £15k anywhere is the world (I don’t recall seeing an endorsement and I do read my docs)

    If one we’re going on a cruise it would be a bit ridiculous to wear Ones tiara on the bus wouldn’t it?
  • lisyloo wrote: »
    Isn’t there are third type provided by hiscox, axa advanced etc. that covers items up to £15k anywhere is the world (I don’t recall seeing an endorsement and I do read my docs)

    If one we’re going on a cruise it would be a bit ridiculous to wear Ones tiara on the bus wouldn’t it?

    Ok, perhaps I should have said there are two basic types of cover! :)

    I was thinking in terms of us mere mortals rather than the "high net worth" brigade, though you could argue that it's just very good unspecified cover with a higher than average limit.

    Your last point aligns with my thoughts on the appropriateness of the endorsement, it feels like something that an insurer would only apply when they felt obliged to offer cover for something outside their usual acceptance range. Unless you're happy to comply with the conditions you'd probably be best advised to find another insurer who can cater for your needs.
  • Is it possible that the "endorsement" is actually a standard policy condition which requires that jewellery be kept in a safe/locked away when not being worn? Were you given the option of extending this cover on what in my day was called an 'all risks' basis to provide cover outside the home?


    There is nothing in the original post that says you extended the cover, only that at a later date you took the jewellery away from home.


    It would be useful if you have or can obtain a copy of the proposal originally submitted to the insurer, so that you can check the type of cover you actually requested.
  • Even HNW policies like that offered by Hiscox, Chubb etc regularly make use of these "personal custody clauses," even though all contents are written on a worldwide all risk basis so there is no need for a seperate "personal possessions" type section.

    However, I rarely see a clause applied until an item is around the £100k mark or more, and it depends how an item fits into a client's overall collection. For example I have clients with several million of Jewellery but only have such an endorsement applied to a couple of items that are individually pushing around the million mark.

    And despite me saying that these policies are written on an all risks basis, most people at that level tend to select a "floating" jewellery limit so they are covered for, say £1m in the home safe, £3m in the bank vault, and no more than £500k out of the safe at any one time. They could have it all covered as all risks but why would you pay a higher premium to do so when you can't wear six watches at the same time for example. In that way it can end up being similar to the personal possessions section on a standard policy, albeit in a roundabout way.

    I've never before seen it raised that such terms or endorsements are inherently unfair or unenforceable, but my sales are advised and so it tends to fall on me to work with a client to make sure they understand how to look after their jewellery and comply with their policy terms.
    Lloyds broker working in Private Clients and Property Owners.


    Looking to help and be helped.
  • Thanks to all who contributed the constructive and helpful replies, much appreciated.

    To clarify a few things. We did have specified / extended cover for the item in question, it was part of a list including watches we gave to the insurer. All in advance of the incident.

    I think my overriding feeling is that the endorsement, is at least very impractical, if not in most instances impossible to comply with. The example given above about wearing a tiara on a bus is a good one!

    The current endorsement implies that the item need to be worn 100% of the time or in a safe. And that is where I think its impractical, one does not wear certain types jewellery worth £10K plus all the time. It poses security risks and other issues.

    At the time of taking out the cover we did ask a number of questions, specifically on the jewellery away from home. And at no time did they point specicially to the endorsement as say "check that this meets youre needs" and if we had we'd have gone elsewhere.

    So I think our recourse is to complain in the strongest terms directly. And if that fails to raise an FOS complaint.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.7K Life & Family
  • 247.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards