Contents insurance - am I wasting my time?
Discussion
I posted about this elsewhere, but I would like the opinions of some of the insurance experts on here, and figured this is where you like to hang out.. 
I suffered a recent burglary, scrotes raided my garage and had off with a bunch of tools.
I claimed for the general power tools on my insurance, and they seem to be coming right, however they've refused my claim for a battery charger and a compression test kit, stating they are motoring accessories, and not covered.
Personally I consider them tools, and both the compression tester and battery charger could be used for non motoring applications, though that is tenuous. My contents insurer even suggested I try claiming on my motor insurance policy, which I'm reluctant to do given the likely rise in premiums as a consequence.
I'm over £100 down, and whilst that's not a life changing hardship, I'm still out of pocket on a matter of semantics.
Is it worth me appealing to a higher authority? Will I be wasting my time? Thoughts and opinions welcome..
I suffered a recent burglary, scrotes raided my garage and had off with a bunch of tools.
I claimed for the general power tools on my insurance, and they seem to be coming right, however they've refused my claim for a battery charger and a compression test kit, stating they are motoring accessories, and not covered.
Personally I consider them tools, and both the compression tester and battery charger could be used for non motoring applications, though that is tenuous. My contents insurer even suggested I try claiming on my motor insurance policy, which I'm reluctant to do given the likely rise in premiums as a consequence.
I'm over £100 down, and whilst that's not a life changing hardship, I'm still out of pocket on a matter of semantics.
Is it worth me appealing to a higher authority? Will I be wasting my time? Thoughts and opinions welcome..
NFU?
I had a garage breakin late last year, and my failure to read the not very small print about motoring stuff cost me a bike exhaust, a minimoto and a couple of alloys. It hurt, but in the end, my fault. I suspect my car insurer would have told me to do one for items utterly unrelated to that specific car.
I had a garage breakin late last year, and my failure to read the not very small print about motoring stuff cost me a bike exhaust, a minimoto and a couple of alloys. It hurt, but in the end, my fault. I suspect my car insurer would have told me to do one for items utterly unrelated to that specific car.
Check the policy wording line by line.
Chances are you they are not pulling your leg and such things are excluded - I had a policy which had a limit of £1500 for items away from the home but this was reduced to £1000 if they were in a motor vehicle.
Guess what they said to me when i had £1400+ worth of stuff stolen from a campervan...
It does sound harsh though that they will not cover a battery charger and generic car testing equipment. Exhaust I can see, compression test kit is then pushing it to the very limits. As said though the policy wording is king.
Chances are you they are not pulling your leg and such things are excluded - I had a policy which had a limit of £1500 for items away from the home but this was reduced to £1000 if they were in a motor vehicle.
Guess what they said to me when i had £1400+ worth of stuff stolen from a campervan...
It does sound harsh though that they will not cover a battery charger and generic car testing equipment. Exhaust I can see, compression test kit is then pushing it to the very limits. As said though the policy wording is king.
Rude-boy said:
It does sound harsh though that they will not cover a battery charger and generic car testing equipment. Exhaust I can see, compression test kit is then pushing it to the very limits. As said though the policy wording is king.
Wording is indeed king, however I call it as semantics, some would consider a compression test kit an accessory, but most that have such things would call it a tool. I'd call a motoring accessory something like some roof bars, a bike rack.From the OED:
Accessory: "a thing which can be added to something else in order to make it more useful, versatile, or attractive."
A compression test kit does not make my car more useful versatile or attractive.
But to anyone else out there, I'd suggest you check your own insurance policies in detail, and perhaps call your insurer to clarify, as you may well be without cover..
Jimmyarm said:
See my post in the mechanics bit, tl;dr it's time to make a formal complaint about it.
Particularly in light of the battery charger being excluded. They are taking the piss
I've drafted a letter to send to the complaints department, which included among other things the dictionary definitions of 'tool' and 'accessory', I've also CC'd the chairman of the board, for what it's worth. Next stop will be a motoring club that endorses this particular insurance company, and a letter to their chairman.Particularly in light of the battery charger being excluded. They are taking the piss
dacouch said:
Which Insurer is it so we can read the exact wording they're relying on.
The devil is in the detail
Not sure if I'd be in breach of the name & shame rules, but here's the phrase, word for word, from their policy booklet:The devil is in the detail
Contents are not:
motor vehicles (including motor cycles, quad bikes and motorized scooters), caravans, trailers, watercraft aircraft and all their accessories.
The intention is to not pay for items that are essentially parts of motor vehicles for example a towbar or roof rack or snow chains etc which the contents Insurers would expect to be covered by a motor policy and / or be sold as part of the car.
Send them a letter headed "Official Complaint" they're duty bound to investigate the matter properly and report back to you within eight weeks.
If they don't back down you (I suspect they will) then you have the option of going to the Ombudsman which is free for you but may well mean the Insurer has to pay a fee of hundreds to the Ombudsman.
Ironically the Oxford Dictionary gives this definition "A thing which can be added to something else in order to make it more useful, versatile, or attractive:
optional accessories include a battery charger and shoulder strap"
There example is (In my opinion) giving an example of a battery charger that would be sold as an addition to an item such as an apple charger
Send them a letter headed "Official Complaint" they're duty bound to investigate the matter properly and report back to you within eight weeks.
If they don't back down you (I suspect they will) then you have the option of going to the Ombudsman which is free for you but may well mean the Insurer has to pay a fee of hundreds to the Ombudsman.
Ironically the Oxford Dictionary gives this definition "A thing which can be added to something else in order to make it more useful, versatile, or attractive:
optional accessories include a battery charger and shoulder strap"
There example is (In my opinion) giving an example of a battery charger that would be sold as an addition to an item such as an apple charger
dacouch said:
Ironically the Oxford Dictionary gives this definition "A thing which can be added to something else in order to make it more useful, versatile, or attractive:
optional accessories include a battery charger and shoulder strap"
There example is (In my opinion) giving an example of a battery charger that would be sold as an addition to an item such as an apple charger
To avoid a pedantic discussion I chose to omit the example when I quoted the OED - I can't see the usefulness of a shoulder strap for a car either.optional accessories include a battery charger and shoulder strap"
There example is (In my opinion) giving an example of a battery charger that would be sold as an addition to an item such as an apple charger
Your complaint ought to do the trick but I'd be tempted to tell them how angered you are by their misinterpretation of the policy wording and that if necessary you will take the matter to Insurance Ombudsman which will cost them several times more than the amount being disputed (at this they should fold).
However maybe this would help your argument - say you were to sell your BMW you might well include any accessories you bought for that car. If you then bought a Volvo those accessories would possibly be useless to you as they may not fit. Your battery charger and compression tester could be used on most cars and are therefore tools not accessories.
However maybe this would help your argument - say you were to sell your BMW you might well include any accessories you bought for that car. If you then bought a Volvo those accessories would possibly be useless to you as they may not fit. Your battery charger and compression tester could be used on most cars and are therefore tools not accessories.
I was always of the impression that before going to Ombudsman, you were required to formally write to the company with a complaint ,and that they must reply within a set period After that period ,the Ombudsman will consider that the firm has no intention of replying. I'd be tempted to phrase the opening statement that you are about to complain to the Ombudsman ,but protocol demands that the firm are given a chance to reply , unless those better qualified deem that this is wrong way to go .
elanfan said:
However maybe this would help your argument - say you were to sell your BMW you might well include any accessories you bought for that car. If you then bought a Volvo those accessories would possibly be useless to you as they may not fit. Your battery charger and compression tester could be used on most cars and are therefore tools not accessories.
That's a good and useful argument, I will retain that for future correspondence if required. Thankyou!ouch said:
elanfan said:
However maybe this would help your argument - say you were to sell your BMW you might well include any accessories you bought for that car. If you then bought a Volvo those accessories would possibly be useless to you as they may not fit. Your battery charger and compression tester could be used on most cars and are therefore tools not accessories.
That's a good and useful argument, I will retain that for future correspondence if required. Thankyou!I work for a home insurance company, in claims. Our policy wording is broadly similar to that quoted earlier. We take the stance that if an item can only be used on or with a motor vehicle then it would be excluded from cover. If it can be used for other purposes then we would cover it.
I would personally write to them, setting out that the items being claimed for can be used for purposes other than a motor vehicle and are not accessories. I would include to a definition of 'accessory' as they will then be hard pushed to argue that it is.
It might be worth just calling and asking to speak to somebody else or a team leader, you may have just got a claims handler who has incorrectly interpreted the wording. Have you already advised them that you are unhappy with the decision not to cover the item?
I would personally write to them, setting out that the items being claimed for can be used for purposes other than a motor vehicle and are not accessories. I would include to a definition of 'accessory' as they will then be hard pushed to argue that it is.
It might be worth just calling and asking to speak to somebody else or a team leader, you may have just got a claims handler who has incorrectly interpreted the wording. Have you already advised them that you are unhappy with the decision not to cover the item?
Snails said:
It might be worth just calling and asking to speak to somebody else or a team leader, you may have just got a claims handler who has incorrectly interpreted the wording. Have you already advised them that you are unhappy with the decision not to cover the item?
I've spoken to several different 'first contact' type operators, each have repeated the same line that the computer gave them, largely blaming their underwriter. I've mentioned in each case that I'm not happy and will be escalating. A letter has been drafted and emailed to their 'feedback' email address used for complaints, and also the chairman of the board - this went out on friday afternoon. I've yet to receive a response or acknowledgement.Update:
Got a call this afternoon from someone in 'Customer Care' in response to my complaint email. She reviewed the case and agreed that the initial decision to not cover the disputed items was wrong, and they'd authorise the claims centre to replace or issue a cash settlement for the battery charger and the compression tester, was then passed over to a claims handler who (after some faffing in finding the same make & model charger) said she'd sort out a cheque to cover both items.
Result
Moral of the story: complain to the chairman.
Thanks to everyone who offered advice and encouragement - being sure I am right is good motivation to pursue a complaint.
Got a call this afternoon from someone in 'Customer Care' in response to my complaint email. She reviewed the case and agreed that the initial decision to not cover the disputed items was wrong, and they'd authorise the claims centre to replace or issue a cash settlement for the battery charger and the compression tester, was then passed over to a claims handler who (after some faffing in finding the same make & model charger) said she'd sort out a cheque to cover both items.
Result
Moral of the story: complain to the chairman.
Thanks to everyone who offered advice and encouragement - being sure I am right is good motivation to pursue a complaint.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff