Insurance claim, is this greedy?

[dl8860]

I understand the risk based approach, I really do. But when the whole industry is designed to put you off from ever clawing back any of the money that you've paid over the years, it leaves a pretty bad taste in the mouth.

You might be surprised. Both my home and contents insurance are with Lloyds and over the last five years, I've had quite a few claims, the largest being for slightly over £10k following a near lightning strike. My premiums barely changed afterwards. Don't automatically assume that because you've made a claim, your premiums will rocket.

Thanks for the insight

 

[Royal Fleet]

I think you need to be very clear here about what was said in the initial call.

If the original adjuster said 'it's covered, we'll pay £459 and no further action is required from you' then I would push ahead for the full claim.

However if he said 'it sounds like it's covered but we need a completed claim form (or some other documentary evidence), and we will want the salvage' then you are on shaky ground.

 

[dl8860]

I think you need to be very clear here about what was said in the initial call.

If the original adjuster said 'it's covered, we'll pay £459 and no further action is required from you' then I would push ahead for the full claim.

However if he said 'it sounds like it's covered but we need a completed claim form (or some other documentary evidence), and we will want the salvage' then you are on shaky ground.

Well it was somewhere in between the two, it was "The way we will deal with this will be to pay out £459, you need to upload pictures of the smashed phone and provide proof of ownership (which I did immediately) and then we will process the claim".

There was no mention of receipts, proof of purchase of a new phone or anything about salvage or their ownership of the existing broken handset. Which in my mind is closer to the first one.

 

[MacRS4]

You'd be better off with the 359 obviously - insurance isn't for betterment, it's for replacement. I.e they assume x risk, a claim puts you back where you were, it's not designed to make you better off than you were.

They'd probably want proof of costs to you for their coverage anyway.

 

[dirtybeatfreak]

They will have the call recorded so you can ask for that. Whether it can be held too I am not sure. As I said, they only have to put him back into the position he were in unless it's a old for new policy. If it costs them £150 to do that by way of repair but the OP refuses and wants cash, then they would only give him that amount as a cash settlement.

The thing is, the OP has done himself no favours by getting rid of the phone during the claim. It is frowned upon and is probably why they now want proof of purchase.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I understand the risk based approach, I really do. But when the whole industry is designed to put you off from ever clawing back any of the money that you've paid over the years, it leaves a pretty bad taste in the mouth.

If they encourage claims, then the business model doesn't work. The idea of insurance is to claim when it is needed rather than to spread the cost of low value and affordable items. If you are looking to use insurance to take the edge off of small payments, then you are likely more suited to a loan for the replacement over a claim.

 

[Craig321]

There's no such thing as being too greedy with an insurance company. Squeeze as much as you can from them, they would and do do the same thing to you.

But I don't see much hope for you now that you've told them you traded it in. If they had paid out £359, I assume they would have wanted the phone back which they can then sell on for repairs? Don't know.

 

[BDEE]

This is why you never do anything until the claim is settled.

They have no obligation to pay you the original amount and the offer of the £129 is now perfectly acceptable as your wife will be back in her original position (i.e. with a working phone) at the cost of £100 excess. Insurance isn't there for you to make money from, it is there to return you to the position you were in before the loss. Which you will be.

Also a point of note, many of the above posts suggest cancelling the claim due to any knock on effect to your premiums - I'm afraid the damage was done the minute you called the insurer.

Premiums are not only affected by paid claims, but also on losses. There is now a permanent record held that you have had this loss and the value of it. It is already at the stage where the insurer will consider it at your renewal and will have to be declared if asked for on any new home insurance application if you move provider, even if you withdraw your claim. I assume you have claimed on the personal possessions part of the cover - usually smaller claims under this additional cover don't have that much of an effect on your renewal and some insurers it might not make any difference to the price at all - It is all down to how they perceive it under their risk models. What I can say for sure though that with any provider, failure to declare any losses, as well as claims, could render your policy invalid in the event of a claim. So basically there is little point in cancelling your claim at this stage.

 

[Richdog]

Last week my wife dropped her iPhone 6 and the screen smashed and it would no longer turn on.

I call the insurance company the next day, and am told by the nice bloke on the phone that although for screen smashes they normally send for repair, as the phone no longer turns on then that isn't worth it. He then said that the way it will be settled is for a cash sum equal to the RRP (£459) of the phone on Apple's website, less the exceess which is £100, so £359.
The next day my wife goes into the Apple shop, and they say that they can give her a like-for-like replacement for £229, and take her phone off her. Result.

I contact the insurers today to check how the claim is processing, as I hadn't heard anything back from them yet, and the person on the phone says actually they want to do a repair. I question this, saying that I was told they would be doing a cash payout, but she refers to the terms of the policy which say that a repair is the preferred option.

I then say that the phone is not operational, we were definitely told that it would be a cash sum, and that my wife has already bought a new phone and traded the old one in. At this point she backs down on the repair idea, and then asks for a receipt from the purchase, and they'll then settle cash. This would be £229 minus the £100 excess, so £129.

Now, am I being really greedy by wondering if there is any way I can hold them to their word and payout the £359 mentioned above?

The other thing to mention is that this is probably going to impact my premiums going forward, which is a much more worthwhile thing to do for the sake of £359 than £129. But I guess that doesn't give me much to stand on.

This is actually the first time I've ever claimed on insurance, so I don't really know the ins and outs here.

Greed? No, what you are suggesting is closer to "fraud". They have offered to pay your repair based on your receipt, I don't see how you can change that without falsifying anything. You certainly have no right to anything more than that and are just being more than a little *****.

 

[chaparral]

At this point she backs down on the repair idea, and then asks for a receipt from the purchase, and they'll then settle cash. This would be £229 minus the £100 excess, so £129..

Imagine the OP face when they told him they want the receipt from the purchase of the new replacement phone....

 

[A2Z]

OP why on earth would you buy a replacement and trade in the old phone BEFORE the insurance paid out?

That's just stupid, to put it nicely.

 

[MacRS4]

OP why on earth would you buy a replacement and trade in the old phone BEFORE the insurance paid out?

That's just stupid, to put it nicely.

Oh I don't know about that so much. I'd buy a new one immediately and claim. Perhaps I'd umm and aaah a bit over the trade in though - perhaps that more what you mean?

 

[Efour]

i do find peoples attitudes to attempted insurance fraud amusing.

but on the other hand there are people that pay insurance for ever, like my mother, then when it comes to make a claim will try and avoid it because "the premiums will go up" etc etc. Its a very clever way to make a crap load of money and give nothing in return.

 

[booyaka]

At the end of the day, your insurance is there to generally put you back in a position before the "lose/damage" happened.

So you've paid out £229 for a new phone, you are back in the position you were before your wife dropped the phone now.

So at best you can claim £229 - £100 excess.

Anything over and above that would be fraud despite what was said on the phone.

Next time, wait for the full claim to the processed and you might have got the larger cheque. (get a crap £10 mobile for a week or 2)

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

The £359 offerred would have likely been on the basis that you returned the phone.
Which you now can't do.

Personally I'd just leave as is, you've replaced the phone outside of insurance

 

[Cyanide]

I love the way people assume insurance companies are evil, money grabbing corporations who make huge sums of money.

The biggest insurance companies in the UK operate at <5% profit margin.

Yes, it is still a lot of money when you consider the turnover but at the same time they're required under EU law to have a certain amount of capital.

They're not just out to rob you, it's just that home insurance policies were never originally designed to cater for small losses such as this.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

The principle behind insurance companies is to provide a service to minimise financial risk due to costly breakages. This is obviously done for a small regular fee which on average covers the cost of a payout and gives a small profit. Small claims by their nature are not worth it and especially so if several small affordable claims are made in quick succession.