Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Phone claim on Home Insurance

Options
  • 02-12-2013 1:31pm
    #1
    swht
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭


    So my partners iphone 4S was stolen at the weekend. She was entitled to an upgrade and went in and bought the iphone 5S for €179. The 4S was listed as a specified risk on the home insurance policy. I rang the insurance company today and they suggested that they would likely cover the cost of the upgrade but probably not the cost of replacement of a 4s even though it is a new for old policy.

    I wonder if this is correct, if this is the case she is at a financial loss as she is now tied in to a new contract and no longer has the old 4s. Surely the item covered was the 4s and she should be entitled to a new one which costs €400 or the value of a new one. We had the phones value listed as €570 from when she got it and I presume our premium was based on this.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    tracey1098
    Registered Users Posts: 137 ✭✭tracey1098


    Your insurers should cover the market cost of replacing an iphone 4s - so i would say she is entitled to claim €400


  • Options
    #3
    kkelliher
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭kkelliher


    gonzo.phd wrote: »
    So my partners iphone 4S was stolen at the weekend. She was entitled to an upgrade and went in and bought the iphone 5S for €179. The 4S was listed as a specified risk on the home insurance policy. I rang the insurance company today and they suggested that they would likely cover the cost of the upgrade but probably not the cost of replacement of a 4s even though it is a new for old policy.

    I wonder if this is correct, if this is the case she is at a financial loss as she is now tied in to a new contract and no longer has the old 4s. Surely the item covered was the 4s and she should be entitled to a new one which costs €400 or the value of a new one. We had the phones value listed as €570 from when she got it and I presume our premium was based on this.

    its unusual to have an iphone on a household policy as alot of the insurers dont cover mobile phones but in any event they generaly have a coverage item thats reads something similar to "pay an amount to replace the item with an equivalent item" and given you upgraded then they would be well within their rights to simply pay the upgrade as that was the cost to you. If you had discussed it with them at an early stage they may have opted to simply replace it for you.

    Taking account of an excess on the policy may make it difficult to justify a claim for this type of value in any event.


  • Options
    #4
    kkelliher
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭kkelliher


    tracey1098 wrote: »
    Your insurers should cover the market cost of replacing an iphone 4s - so i would say she is entitled to claim €400

    if they had being contacted in advance they would have simply replaced the item. It is highly unlikly you will get an insurance company paying out on such a claim and you would still be liable for an excess


  • Options
    #5
    swht
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭swht


    kkelliher wrote: »
    if they had being contacted in advance they would have simply replaced the item. It is highly unlikly you will get an insurance company paying out on such a claim and you would still be liable for an excess

    There is no excess for a specified item on this policy, I suspect this is the approach they will take. I will try to argue that the point of insurance is to leave you in the same position financially as prior to the loss and that this proposal doesn't do that.


  • Options
    #6
    kkelliher
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭kkelliher


    gonzo.phd wrote: »
    There is no excess for a specified item on this policy, I suspect this is the approach they will take. I will try to argue that the point of insurance is to leave you in the same position financially as prior to the loss and that this proposal doesn't do that.

    I dont see how it does not do that. The phone is an upgrade of the original and unless your parnter can prove she was never going to enter into a new phone contract I cant see how they are in a worse position.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    swht
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭swht


    kkelliher wrote: »
    I dont see how it does not do that. The phone is an upgrade of the original and unless your parnter can prove she was never going to enter into a new phone contract I cant see how they are in a worse position.


    Well because she had a phone that was out of contract, she no longer has this. The fact that she paid for an iphone 5s is irrellevant, the providers offer of an upgrade could have been taken up at any time and she would still have had the 4s to do with as she wished.


  • Options
    #8
    kkelliher
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭kkelliher


    gonzo.phd wrote: »
    Well because she had a phone that was out of contract, she no longer has this. The fact that she paid for an iphone 5s is irrellevant, the providers offer of an upgrade could have been taken up at any time and she would still have had the 4s to do with as she wished.

    good point to be fair


  • Options
    #9
    swht
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭swht


    kkelliher wrote: »
    good point to be fair

    I'm hoping they'll see it that way, and thanks for your input. To be fair to the insurance company they've been very pleasant to deal with so far and haven't ruled it out completely so I was just trying to see what others think of my argument. I'll post an update as soon as I have one.


Advertisement