Discussion
So cutting a long story short, at the start of the month I was burgled and had a few bits and bobs nicked.
Most of these items have been replaced by the insurer on a like for like basis, all good, after all an ipod is an ipod no arguments there.
The problem I am having is over my digital camera, four years old, a Pentax Optio S, originally cost £230 for which I have the reciept, and sent this to the insurance company.
Now the insurance company are offering me vouchers for Comet for £88 or the cost of a new Pentax Optio S12, a much better and newer model of camera, but I am feeling slightly short changed.
After all, at the time of purchasing the camera I went to the shop, and paid top dollar for a top of the line compact camera, am I right to expect a top of the line camera back, or simply the closest model to the one I had before?
Or am I being a prat for even questioning it at all, should I just be happy they are getting me a new camera?
Got me thinking about the insurance business, do you insure the item, or the value of the item?
If you insure the item, then why accept valuations for items of jewellery etc?
Most of these items have been replaced by the insurer on a like for like basis, all good, after all an ipod is an ipod no arguments there.
The problem I am having is over my digital camera, four years old, a Pentax Optio S, originally cost £230 for which I have the reciept, and sent this to the insurance company.
Now the insurance company are offering me vouchers for Comet for £88 or the cost of a new Pentax Optio S12, a much better and newer model of camera, but I am feeling slightly short changed.
After all, at the time of purchasing the camera I went to the shop, and paid top dollar for a top of the line compact camera, am I right to expect a top of the line camera back, or simply the closest model to the one I had before?
Or am I being a prat for even questioning it at all, should I just be happy they are getting me a new camera?
Got me thinking about the insurance business, do you insure the item, or the value of the item?
If you insure the item, then why accept valuations for items of jewellery etc?
NDA said:
They are following the letter of their policy.... The scam is that they have charged you a premium based on a £230 camera rather than an equivalent one.
REally - surely a cheap £230 camera wont be a specified item on your policy and so the premium covers all your goods up to a total max value only. To be honest it does sound fair, I'll be quite happy with the newer camera, and I'm not looking to get one over the insurance company.
But my thoughts were more on the hypothetical level.
Whether the insurance is right to cover the item itself, or as close as is possible, or if it is the value of the item that they insure?
But my thoughts were more on the hypothetical level.
Whether the insurance is right to cover the item itself, or as close as is possible, or if it is the value of the item that they insure?
son of a vette said:
To be honest it does sound fair, I'll be quite happy with the newer camera, and I'm not looking to get one over the insurance company.
But my thoughts were more on the hypothetical level.
Whether the insurance is right to cover the item itself, or as close as is possible, or if it is the value of the item that they insure?
Depends on the insurance, obviously. Generally it will be the value of the item at the time it was lost (which for a four year old camera is close to bugger all). In your case it was new-for-old, and you're up on the deal. Or for higher value, non-commodity items like jewellery you can go for agreed value. It all depends on what you pay for!But my thoughts were more on the hypothetical level.
Whether the insurance is right to cover the item itself, or as close as is possible, or if it is the value of the item that they insure?
son of a vette said:
To be honest it does sound fair, I'll be quite happy with the newer camera, and I'm not looking to get one over the insurance company.
But my thoughts were more on the hypothetical level.
Whether the insurance is right to cover the item itself, or as close as is possible, or if it is the value of the item that they insure?
I'm not an expert, but I suspect they cover the item, there's probably an "Insurance Underwriters Big Book of Values" that gives them a handle on average values for items like cameras so a premium can be calculated. There's a fair bit of assumption in insurance for low value stuff i bet.But my thoughts were more on the hypothetical level.
Whether the insurance is right to cover the item itself, or as close as is possible, or if it is the value of the item that they insure?
i see your point but you have to consider that technology has moved on and if what they are offering covers the same image quality etc then its a fair offer.
the flipside is that when i was burgled last year, one of the items stolen was an original imac worth about £10 which was replaced by a spanking new top of the line model, and a minolta dynax5 film slr that was replaced with £1200 worth of nikon digital slr and lenses.
was gutted when they wouldn't let me renew my insurance with them [was a specialist renovations policy]
the flipside is that when i was burgled last year, one of the items stolen was an original imac worth about £10 which was replaced by a spanking new top of the line model, and a minolta dynax5 film slr that was replaced with £1200 worth of nikon digital slr and lenses.
was gutted when they wouldn't let me renew my insurance with them [was a specialist renovations policy]
ascayman said:
you have a new for old policy. they have replaced your old camera for the newer (better) replacment. stop moaning.
Ascayman, I am not moaning, merely raising a point; As I said above, I will be quite happy with the new camera, I just was curious about the methods that insurers use, and as a side point to that getting a better understanding of what we get for the money we pay to insurers.
If they insure an item that is reducing in value (eg: a car) over its life, why does the premium not reduce over that period, as you are insuring less?
However if you are insuring the value/ cost of that item, then the premium you would pay would stay the same?
son of a vette said:
ascayman said:
you have a new for old policy. they have replaced your old camera for the newer (better) replacment. stop moaning.
Ascayman, I am not moaning, merely raising a point; As I said above, I will be quite happy with the new camera, I just was curious about the methods that insurers use, and as a side point to that getting a better understanding of what we get for the money we pay to insurers.
If they insure an item that is reducing in value (eg: a car) over its life, why does the premium not reduce over that period, as you are insuring less?
However if you are insuring the value/ cost of that item, then the premium you would pay would stay the same?
it just seems that insurers often get a bad press and are sort of damned if they do damned if they dont.
in this instance you have had a 4 year old camera stolen. they have replaced it with a brand new better version.
in my opinion you should be more than happy with that.
son of a vette said:
So cutting a long story short, at the start of the month I was burgled and had a few bits and bobs nicked.
Most of these items have been replaced by the insurer on a like for like basis, all good, after all an ipod is an ipod no arguments there.
The problem I am having is over my digital camera, four years old, a Pentax Optio S, originally cost £230 for which I have the reciept, and sent this to the insurance company.
Now the insurance company are offering me vouchers for Comet for £88 or the cost of a new Pentax Optio S12, a much better and newer model of camera, but I am feeling slightly short changed.
After all, at the time of purchasing the camera I went to the shop, and paid top dollar for a top of the line compact camera, am I right to expect a top of the line camera back, or simply the closest model to the one I had before?
Or am I being a prat for even questioning it at all, should I just be happy they are getting me a new camera?
Got me thinking about the insurance business, do you insure the item, or the value of the item?
If you insure the item, then why accept valuations for items of jewellery etc?
You should be reimbursed for an equivalent camera, not a four year newer, far more complex device, regardless of price.Most of these items have been replaced by the insurer on a like for like basis, all good, after all an ipod is an ipod no arguments there.
The problem I am having is over my digital camera, four years old, a Pentax Optio S, originally cost £230 for which I have the reciept, and sent this to the insurance company.
Now the insurance company are offering me vouchers for Comet for £88 or the cost of a new Pentax Optio S12, a much better and newer model of camera, but I am feeling slightly short changed.
After all, at the time of purchasing the camera I went to the shop, and paid top dollar for a top of the line compact camera, am I right to expect a top of the line camera back, or simply the closest model to the one I had before?
Or am I being a prat for even questioning it at all, should I just be happy they are getting me a new camera?
Got me thinking about the insurance business, do you insure the item, or the value of the item?
If you insure the item, then why accept valuations for items of jewellery etc?
If you had a 50 year old Fiat 500 stolen, would you expect a new Audi Quattro as replacement?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff