Re: Genuine insurance mistake - where do I stand ??

Toom Tabard wrote:
On 22 Sep, 23:34, Dave <f...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I has some computers damaged by lightning. Although these are used at
home for personal use, they are not typical home PC, but unusual
machines made by Sun Microsystems. These are covered on a household 'new
for old' policy.

<SNIP>

So, what part did the loss adjuster actually play? He is normally
appointed to investigate, arbitrate/negotiate and agree/recommend a
settlement, and as part of that has clarified that the full value is
covered. His recommendation should be based on the fair settlement of
your claim, not on taking advantage of a customer's misunderstanding
of the cover.

When the loss adjuster came to see me, I gave him a spread*** showing what I believed were alternatives to the originals, along with a quote from a Sun authorised dealer. The Sun dealer clearly states the nearest equivalent model costs £3,214.25.

There is another item on the quote, which is not really close to anything I lost, and was in fact not on the original quote I got from the Sun dealer. I only asked him to add this cheaper item, when I realised the nearest equivalent was over £2500.

I had circulated that spread*** before, to iVal, who were a computer company that were supposed to deal with it, but who were incapable of doing so, which is part of the reason the loss adjuster was appointed - I think the other reason is the replacement costs were higher than iVal were allowed to handle.

Unfortunately, I made a mistake on that spread ***, based on my mis-understanding of the policy.

These are quite technical items, so the loss adjuster does not have a detailed understanding of them. But everything on the quote from a Sun authorised dealer has been accepted, except this one item, where I pointed out I'd accept a lesser model. The insurers are trying to hold me to this lesser model.

From telephone conversations I've had with the loss adjuster, he has told the insurers I am being very fair over several items. For example:

* I lost a tape drive (replacement cost around £450-£500), which I did not even bother claiming for, as I have another one.
* I said I would accept a Lexmark replacement printer, which was cheaper than the nearest HP could quote for. He did not suggest the Lexmark - I did.
* My machine had a memory card reader. I did not bother asking for that - these are pretty cheap anyway.


If the full value is covered as new-for-old, then you should merely
point out that your initial 'offer' was based on your (mis)
understanding of the single item limit, and that the matter was
discussed with (and clarified with) a loss adjuster appointed by them,
and that your claim is now based on your actual entitlement under the
policy cover.

Thank you.

Unless they can substantiate that the cheaper model is
basically equivalent to that lost, then their case is liable to be
rather weak. Pursue strongly the loss adjuster element and the
contents of his report/recommendation to the insurer, particularly on
the value/amount of the claim.

Toom

The insurers have not attempted to substantiate the cheaper model is basically equivalent. That would be impossible for them to do I believe.

The most obvious difference between the two possible replacement models is that one uses a SPARC processor designed by Sun. The other computer, although made by Sun, uses a processor made by Intel. The two are completely incompatible - programs which run on one machine will not run on the other. (This is not like the AMD/Intel issue, where programs which run on an Intel CPU will run on an AMD CPU and visa versa. The SPARC processor is a totally different animal, which will not run programs built to run on an Intel or AMD processor).



--
I respectfully request that this message is not archived by companies as
unscrupulous as 'Experts Exchange' . In case you are unaware,
'Experts Exchange' take questions posted on the web and try to find
idiots stupid enough to pay for the answers, which were posted freely
by others. They are leeches.
.

Loading