Claim for leathers and helmet on home contents insurance?

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by WeegieBlue

The basis of the policy in not reinstatement

I'm sorry, but it is.

The policy has been issued on a reinstatement basis - commonly referred to as "new for old". That's why they needed to include the following wording for clothing and cash settlements, which are settled on an Indemnity (current value) basis;

Originally Posted by WeegieBlue

and the policy booklet confirms deductions will be made for clothing, and for the condition of any item that is not repaired or replaced.

"2 We will reduce any claim payment for:
a) clothing; or
b) any item or part which is not replaced or repaired;
to take account of wear and tear or improvement in their condition."

As this will be betterment, they make a deduction based on age and condition. It's likely they will refer the loss to a supplier who will provide a replacement helmet to the policyholder. If the OP wants cash in lieu, it will be based on the value of the item pre-crash, including wear and tear

I assume he wants to replace the helmet though. If he didn't then, yes, the settlement would be reduced but that's a moot point as he needs a new lid.

Whether they reimburse the cash for him buying his own or get a supplier to provide it is immaterial - the policy allows them to do either (under the policy's Reinstatement Clause funnily enough). My point is there should be no deduction for wear and tear.

Betterment will only apply in this case if he chooses to buy a more expensive lid - then he would need to pay the difference himself.

To be fair, I think they'll just replace his lid as it's cheaper for the insurer to use suppliers they have deals with, so wear and tear deductions won't come into it.

If he wants cash, they will make a deduction. The policy says they will. If the OP isn't happy he'll have to make a complaint but there will definitely be a deduction made at this end.

[TamSV]

You're right - they probably will replace. It's usually cheaper and cuts down fraud a bit (fraudsters want cash, not goods).

However, if they don't use their own supplier to replace then the cash settlement should be for the full value of the lid (assuming the OP wants a new lid).

I just want the OP to understand, that if he wants a replacement lid, he should be getting it - one way or the other.

I have actually already replaced the helmet already with an Arai as I couldnt wait for all this! I need to use the bike. I'd be perfectly happy with a replacement jacket though

[TamSV]

Send them the receipt for the Aria. You're entitled to claim the new value of your old lid against it, so check online prices for your old one and claim that amount. Send the page prints from the online shop as evidence.

They might come back and say they could have got it cheaper. If so, they'll pay you that amount.

Tam, I know what your saying here, but what he wants and what the insurance company wants are very different matters. The biggest thing here is that he's claiming on a home insurance policy, not a motor policy, so the claim conditions are a bit different, and it's not as simple as old for new, especially when the policy booklet states that claims won't be paid out like this.

[TamSV]

This might be a good time to mention that, 10 years ago, I was actually writing insurance policies.

No offence to you WB, but it matters not one jot what the insurance company wants, they need to treat their customers fairly - uberrima fides.


If you hadn't been good enough to sort this out for the OP he'd have been waiting ages and may well have given up. There's no reason for him to be out of pocket just because his insurers can't understand their own policy.

For any one item of

personal possessions or part of a set that is lost or damaged

we will decide to either:
a) pay the cost of replacing the item or part as new; or

b) replace the item or part as new; or

c) pay the cost of repairing the item or part; or

d) make a cash payment which will not be more than the amount

it would have cost

us to replace or repair the item using our

own suppliers.

Those are the options available to them to settle - taken from the Direct Line policy. In this case, it's option d).

The above clause gives the insurer the choice of how to settle the claim but they blew that option when they incorrectly told him he wasn't covered. He had no choice but to reinstate the property himself.

There would only be a wear and tear deduction if;

a) it's clothing - Direct Line say it isn't
b) the property wasn't reinstated - he's already done that.

He's therefore entitled to the new value of his old lid (or equivalent), without any deduction for its age. Anything less than that is outwith the terms of the contract.

I have to deal with this nonsense from insurance companies constantly and it really boils my p!sh. While they're banging on about "cutting out the middleman" they're shafting their direct customers who don't know any better. They're not even doing it because they're sneaky (as everyone assumes). It's usually just a lack of knowledge.

Apologies if I come across as a little terse.

Haha! No probs Tam - nice to have a bit of an intellectual chat with someone who knows his peas and carrots!

I spoke to claims and our technical referral unit today. The decision has been made now and can only be overturned by the Customer Relations Team, which I work for. Unfortunately, I'm Glasgow and this case is with Leeds. The poor OP now has to wait weeks/months for this to be looked at. Hopefully he'll get the right decision on this.

[TamSV]

Wha??? I thought it was done!

So because it's been declined, even though they now know that was a mistake, they're still going to take their sweet time to resolve it anyway? That's mince.

Nelson. How's your shouty voice? The squeaky hinge gets the oil pal.

They don't know it was a mistake. The claims department have interpreted the in-house wording in a particular way and aren't looking to change that now. CRT can overrule but Nelson needs to wait in line for them to do that. I spoke to him earlier and said if he hasn't had a response by mid-August he can go to FOS.

Rubbish eh?