Claim for leathers and helmet on home contents insurance?

[TamSV]

If they care to read their own policy they will find the "exclusion" they are referring to is not actually relevant.

It's part of a definition applicable to Section 2: Contents and has no bearing on this claim which I presume is being made under Section 3: Personal Possessions.

They might have another reason not to pay out but they haven't found it yet.

Big red X. Must try harder.

Yes, its the personal possessions cover. I've got the full boonah cover for direct line. Its a tad annoying I have to admit!

I can see their reasons for saying its a vehicle accessory, but their reasoning is vague. I could wear it anywhere else and it would be covered, but on my bike it's not? Huh? I did try to tell the lady at the time i wasnt on the bike at the time of the damage, and that I was rolling down the road at the time, but she seemed to have had a sense-of-humour-ectomy.

Cheers for your help Weegie!

[TamSV]

I win these all the time - they've left a bit of room in their wording for you to work on.

So we know it IS covered under the contents section (i.e. in the home).

Where does it say it's NOT covered in the personal possessions section?

Have a look at your policy. "Contents" and "Personal Possessions" are both defined terms in the policy. The wording they have given you is the "Contents" definition. Section 3 does not mention Contents.

According to the policy wording I've got here, Personal Possessions are items that are "worn or normally carried" as defined by Direct Line, so how does this exclude your helmet? (other insurers word this as "normally worn or carried" and exclude vehicle accessories "on or in a vehicle" which is much clearer). It's not actually just semantics - the policy has to be precise in its meaning.

Even if the wording they have quoted you was relevant (and I could happily argue that it isn't), no reasonable person would say your helmet was attached to the vehicle - the word means what it means, not what they want it to mean.

Unless you have a different policy wording to the one published online, then you've got a case IMO.

Other insurers policies are much clearer than this one. If the wording is vague then it has to be interpreted in your favour - that has always been the principle and the Ombudsman is very clear on that.

OK, I've checked and this is from our internal site:

"Crash helmets are deemed to be motor accessories and any claims under a household policy for the loss of or damage to a crash helmet are to be repudiated on the basis that they are motor accessories and thus excluded. This is in accordance with the FOS view on the situation."

However, if your policy wording says they are only excluded when attached to the vehicle, the helmet will be covered.

When did you take out your policy? I'll check the T&C's here and if it is covered I can speak to claims for you and get them to pay out

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by WeegieBlue

"Crash helmets are deemed to be motor accessories ..... This is in accordance with the FOS view on the situation."

It's worth mentioning that's almost certainly the case. Where a household policy has a clear exclusion of motor accessories, then you're snookered.

The issue here is the actual policy wording.

I've just checked the latest standard Direct Line policy wording and it says these aren't covered:

"motorised vehicles, caravans, trailers, watercraft, hovercraft or aircraft (other than hand propelled or models) and their accessories
(while attached)"

Right, just spoke to claims and the helmet is covered. They will ask how old the helmet was and how much it cost, and will make a deduction for wear and tear, however it is definitely covered.


Nelson, if you can get back to me today before 5pm I'll get this sorted for you.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by WeegieBlue

They will ask how old the helmet was and how much it cost, and will make a deduction for wear and tear

The basis of the policy is reinstatement. Cover is only reduced to indemnity for clothing.

We've already established that the helmet is not treated as clothing, but is a vehicle accessory. The basis of settlement is therefore reinstatement - i.e. full cost of the same or comparable helmet.

They can make a deduction for the jacket but, as it's a robust item of clothing, the wear and tear allowance should be minimal unless it was already very old.

Originally Posted by TamSV

The basis of the policy is reinstatement. Cover is only reduced to indemnity for clothing.

We've already established that the helmet is not treated as clothing, but is a vehicle accessory. The basis of settlement is therefore reinstatement - i.e. full cost of the same or comparable helmet.

They can make a deduction for the jacket but, as it's a robust item of clothing, the wear and tear allowance should be minimal unless it was already very old.

The basis of the policy in not reinstatement 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.

And another quick point. If the there is a third party involved the home insurer will pursue the TP for recovery and if one is made, the OP won't lose his 10% NCD from Direct Line. Also, if there is another policy in force which specifically covers the helmet and leathers, Direct Line will refer the OP to that policy first, and the insurer on that policy may approach Direct Line for a contribution.