Home contents insurance claim query

[glasgowcyclist]

Our house was broken into a few months back and all of my wife's jewellery was stolen.

She compiled a full inventory and sent it to the insurance company's valuer and we've just heard back regarding settlement. They have valued her jewellery and made an offer that she can replace the items using vouchers valid at a large range of jewellery shops. They said that if she didn't want to use the vouchers she could have a cash settlement but this would likely be for 40-50% less because that's the amount of discount the insurance company would get if it was buying the items.

I don't understand this. Surely if the cost to her to replace the jewellery is x then that's what she should get, not x-40%. Much of it is no longer replaceable like for like, for example her engagement ring would have to be made as a one-off from photos we have.

Never having had to claim on a house policy before I am hoping someone knowledgable on here can give me some advice before we go back to them.

GC

 

[Markymark]

Argue with them. We did. We had vouchers and found bugger all to properly replace. We had a chat, I got a cheque.

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Insurance companies in cahoots with suppliers! Where will it end?

 

[slowmotion]

This article may be of interest....

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/92/92-insurance-claims.html

 

[Drago]

You're lawfully entitled to be restored to the position you enjoyed prior to the burglary. The threat of a lower payout for cash is not one they can enforce if you stand firm. You're not compelled to use their supplier, and can not be penalised should you decide not to. Civil courts tend to take a different view to the ombudsman.

I'd write to them and start charging them £50 a letter, and for your time in 1/10 and hour increments, the same as a solicitor would.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

You're lawfully entitled to be restored to the position you enjoyed prior to the burglary. The threat of a lower payout for cash is not one they can enforce if you stand firm. You're not compelled to use their supplier, and can not be penalised should you decide not to. Civil courts tend to take a different view to the ombudsman.

I'd write to them and start charging them £50 a letter, and for your time in 1/10 and hour increments, the same as a solicitor would.

I've checked the policy wording and it is in their terms of settlement that they will not offer more in cash than they can obtain the same goods for so it looks like that's what I'm stuck with.
The range of stores that'll take the vouchers is about 1,800 so it's not that I'll be railroaded to a narrow selection.

Argue with them. We did. We had vouchers and found bugger all to properly replace. We had a chat, I got a cheque.

Was the cash to the same value as the vouchers?

@srw Are you able to shed any light, as has been suggested? Thanks.

GC

 

[Electric_Andy]

Our Insurance (following a burglary) replaced like for like. They are expecting you not to quibble over things that the vouchers can replace. You can argue that in the case of the bespoke ring, it would cost you £x to have made up. I'm guessing the high street affiliates where the vouchers can be used do not do made to order products. At this stage (awaiting the experts advice) I would get a couple of quotes for bespoke items that the vouchers can't cover, and send the insurance company the quotes with a supporting statement as to why/how the vouchers can't be used.

How many items would not be obtainable with the vouchers? Different insurers will differ of course, but ours even paid out for £40 in cash that we had stolen from the mantle piece. The rest of the stuff was like for like (electricals) and the value of my wife's jewelry was paid as a cheque.

 

[Markymark]

I've checked the policy wording and it is in their terms of settlement that they will not offer more in cash than they can obtain the same goods for so it looks like that's what I'm stuck with.
The range of stores that'll take the vouchers is about 1,800 so it's not that I'll be railroaded to a narrow selection.



Was the cash to the same value as the vouchers?

@srw Are you able to shed any light, as has been suggested? Thanks.

GC

The vouchers were list price at a store group of their choosing. I got the equivalent as a cheque as I said nothing was suitable. It was 4 years ago and thinking back cheque may have been roughly 90% value of list but this was negotiated. I always negotiate. I'm a Londoner and its money, innit.

 

[Milkfloat]

I've checked the policy wording and it is in their terms of settlement that they will not offer more in cash than they can obtain the same goods for so it looks like that's what I'm stuck with.

I would tell them to obtain the goods for you then. If they can get the exact custom goods you had from their chosen store then good luck to them.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I would tell them to obtain the goods for you then. If they can get the exact custom goods you had from their chosen store then good luck to them.

As it's all my wife's jewellery, she'll have the final say and I suspect she'll opt for the vouchers. It would be too long and drawn out for her to argue the toss. Me, on the other hand...

GC

 

[Kajjal]

It depends on the wording but generally they have to put you back in the position you were before minus any excess payments.

As above tell them to get you the exact same goods for you. This is generally impossible for Jewelry and lets you negotiate a fair cash settlement. Insurance companies always try it on and bank on people not pushing them for a fair resolution.

 

[Beebo]

They will be able use a clause in the policy that refers to the nearest equivalent.
For instance if you have a 10 year old TV they can't possibly obtain a like for like replacement the same will apply to jewellery.
But always reject the first offer whilst remembering that cash is king and far more useful than vouchers so be prepared to take a small percentage hit.

 

[slowmotion]

My van was stolen 15 years ago. The first offer from the insurance company was a third of it's second hand market value. After a few iterations, we settled on 80% ( or thereabouts, I forget) of the market value. I imagine that they thought that I would need a replacement van in a big hurry to stay in business, and could easily screw me. You really have to realise the insurance trade is populated by ragged spivs and shameless chancers.
The insurance company wasn't some outfit run above a chip shop in Southend.....it was the Prudential.

Hold out for the full value of your loss. After all, that's what you paid your premiums for, not some lower figure dreamed up by those c*nts. Good luck.