HELP! My mobile phone insurance company are ripping me off

[sund1ata]

Hi. I took out an insurance policy with Supercover Insurance (trading as "Talkcover") for my brand new iPhone 3G.

 

Tragically(!) it was stolen. Typical. Good thing I was covered, right..? Wrong. Despite the fact that my case is expicitly (I feel) covered within the terms and conditions, they have refused to pay out, rejecting the claim on the grounds that I did not take "reasonable precautions" for the item's safety. This is a blatant lie.

 

What should I do next? Can I sue them? I certainly have had to shell out for a new phone in the interim at a cost of £360. Can I get them for lost productivity or loss of earnings? Thanks.

Edited January 21, 2009 by sund1ata
link and libellous comment removed

[slick132]

Hi Sun,

 

I've moved this to the Telecoms forum.

 

It will help others advise if you confirm the circumstances of how you lost the phone. You may then get better help in making a proper claim for the phone's loss.

 

I've edited your post to remove the Insurance link and a libellous comment. You'll understand, I hope, why the Site must protect itself as it is liable for thread content.

 

Thanks.

[buzby]

Nope - you need to go throuh the appeals process. If there is no satisfaction, you can take it to the FSA who I believe now look after these matters. That said, much goes by what their T&C state, and two of the most common get out clauses are (1) stolen from a car when the item was not locked in the glove compartment or boot, and (2) Water damage (although some policies DO cover this, it needs to be specified as such).

[sund1ata]

The "appeals" process is a total sham. Can I sue these c*n artists for damages? Loss of income? It is amazing cowboys like this are allowed to trade at all.

[buzby]

That's just a rant. Who'se appeals process? Theinsurance company or the FSA's? You'll not be able to sue anyone if you've lost the plot and said your insurer is a waste of space. You convince them otherwise. If you lose your car because you left your keys in in, insurers won't pay out. You owe them a duty of care. Similarly, if your loss of the phone was deemed reckless they can decline to offer cover and refuse to pay out.

 

So, what were the curcumstances leading to you discovering you didn't have it anymore?

[sund1ata]

I was travelling on the top deck of the bus going home. Two police officers came up with an inspector to do spot checks. Not having my ticket to hand, I put the phone I had in my hand on the seat with some books I had in my bag while I located my ticket. I must have been unsighted for perhaps 10 seconds, before I realized what I had done. In that impossibly short time span, the phone had gone.

Now: the insurance company say they will not pay out because I had not taken "all reasonable precautions" to safeguard the safety of my item, citing in the terms and conditions:

 

"Reasonable precautions - all measures that it would be reasonable to expect a person to take in the circumstances to prevent accidental loss, damage or theft of your electronic equipment";

and that as I had in fact, left the item “unattended”, the claim is void.

From the terms and conditions:

"Unattended - not within your sight at all times and out of your arms-length reach."

Well, by their own definition, the item was never unattended, as it was always within my reach.

 

I am clearly covered, and the insurance company have rejected it on their "appeal". Am I in the position to sue them for losses stemming from their refusal to pay out, as they seem to be flagrantly breaking the terms of their contract?

 

Thanks.

[FightThemAll]

You seem less concerned about the phone and more about sueing them for some reason....

 

If there was police there and the phone was within arms length then I think that it would be highly unlikely that it be stolen and therefore "REASONABLE precautions" were indeed taken.

 

Maybe write them a letter and spell that out for them and see how you get on. After that what you should do or who you should go to I havent got a clue - other members should be able to assit there...

[buzby]

I see you point - but the trouble here is it was a careless act. If it was a £50 note you had in your hand.... would you have put it on the seat whilst you searched for your ticket? I wouldn't either. The underwriters have an expectation that you won't do silly things that lead to a claim (whether it is ultimately rejected or not). In a slightly similar circumstance, I drove off leaving my phone on the roof of the car. It gamely held on until the roundabout, and I spotted it bouncing on the road before a lorry following crushed it.

 

My insurers declined to cover the replacement - at least my SIM still worked. I was told a different insurer may have covered the loss as an 'accidental event' but the ones I was with would not.

 

Sure, you can take them to court, but before you get excided about adding your costs and expenses, you have to WIN the case first, and that won't be a foregone conclusion. An appeal to the FSA directly keeps your options open, and your costs low and will give you a fair idea how the regulator views the issue.

[sund1ata]

@buzby: I take issue with the idea that it was a careless act. Leaving a phone on the top of a car is careless. The likelihood of it being smashed into a thousand pieces is extremely high.

Leaving a phone on a seat by your side for a few seconds with no reasonable expectation that it will come to harm is not careless. It's being stolen was unlikely in the extreme, and under the terms of the contract, it was not unattended at any time.

 

@FightThemAll: I am less concerned with the phone per-se at this point, as I have had to shell out for another. I am concerned that I bought an insurance policy with the expectation that I was covered for loss and theft, when in fact experience has borne out that under almost no circumstances were they ever going to pay out.

 

For instance: they said that if I had been jogging and the phone had bounced out of my pocket, I would have been covered. I could put it to you a reasonable get-out (in their line of thinking) would be that as I had not zipped the pocket, I had not taken "reasonable precautions" to prevent loss or damage. Okay, what if the jogging pants had no pockets? Then it would have been "unreasonable" to go jogging in a pair of pants without a zip, as it was always liable to bounce out. The excuses could go on and on.

[FightThemAll]

I see where you're coming from. In most cases, any type of insurance company, has an endless list of clauses. Not covering damage done as a result of "natural disasters" or only covers THEFT when you have been threatened for example. So they can be very difficult and kind of pointless.

 

In future, read the terms and conditions very carefully and ask them a millions questions if you have to. In my experience carphone warehouse provide an excellent insurance policy - although I think it is a little expensive.

 

Theft is always covered, even from car (if extended policy is taken out), loss (the only clause being that you have to report it to the police within 24 hours which is fair enough) and even accidental damage - including water. If you drop the phone in the sink by mistake or leave it on the roof of the car, they will still replace it.

 

buzby is alot more well informed than me, so take his advise seriously. Maybe just try in the mean time to get a complaint in and escelate it as far up as you can...

[buzby]

In a perfect world, you do not expect anything you don't have physically on your person to be stolen - but Insurance companies don;t work that way. I didn't deem your actions to be unreasonable, but THEY do. (And as it's their ball, etc etc).

 

Remember that old trick where you willingly give your watch to a magician and he puts in a bag and he hits it with a hammer...? But instead of revealing he switched your watch and that bag now contains the remnants of your £2,000 Rolex....? This goes to the heart of the 'reckless' argument. Of course you didn't expect the watch to be in smithereens, or in your case, your phone would still be on the seat beside you, but if a company can legitimately reject a claim from a car owner for the loss of his phone because it was out of sight and locked tight, it makes their rejection of your claim almost a foregone conclusion, whatever the circumstances in dealing with whatever diversion tactic that resulted in its subsequent loss.

[sund1ata]

@buzby: I do understand the "out of sight and locked tight" knock-back applying to stolen items in locked cars. Crappy, but that is what they do. However this only applies if the item is no longer within touching distance. So if you lock your car and walk off and the car is stolen, bye-bye phone.

 

They have knocked me back citing the item was "unattended", when it was not (according to their own terms and conditions):

TalkCover Mobile Phone Insurance Terms and Conditions

 

The phone being by my side does not make me negligent - it was always within touching distance! What possible basis for rejection can they offer? Temporarily placing a phone immediately adjacent to your body for a few seconds constitutes a normal pattern of behaviour for a handheld appliance, and so the "£50 note" analogy you gave earlier falls down.

 

I really appreciate the dialogue and thoughtful responses, by the way - thank you.

[slick132]

Hi Sun,

 

Having read the detail of the loss, I would argue the point with Talkcover using their exclusion clause as the basis for your claim.

 

So, where they say it was left unattended, you can confirm it was not.

 

Tell them if they continue to refuse your claim, you will take the case to the Insurance Ombudsman for investigation.

 

Was this reported to the police at the time of the loss and do you have a Crime Ref No.

[buzby]

I'd disagree with their assessment that it was left 'unattended' - as it remained within reach is was certainly NOT that, so I totally agree with your stance. If they still refuse you, just say you want a deadlock letters as you'll be taking it to the FOS for an adjudication.

[sund1ata]

@slick132: thanks for your input! I have a crime reference number, and have lobbied my point firmly to the point of exhaustion. I have put all these details in writing, showing that I am covered under the terms of the contract; and if I have voided my claim, to indicate the appropriate passage in the T & C that invalidate it. All I get is the nebulous response: "We feel you have not taken all reasonable precautions." Sadly for Talkcover, contract law is not based on our "feelings" but they have basically told me: "We don't feel like paying you."

 

@buzby: Unbelievably, they were so kind as to _suggest_ that I take it to the regulator if I didn't like the judgement! I am amazed by the cavalier attitude this company takes. I think their approach is to bounce as many claims as possible as their default position and hope people don't have the stomach for a fight.

[buzby]

It will not come as a shock that the whole point of profitable insuring is never having to pay out! This is why it is vitally important to see how firms like these handle claims, and if they try to weasel out of their commitment - just like those mobile cashback deals of last year. There little point jumping through all the hoops, if at the end of the day they go bust and your cover is worth nothing.

 

Initially you said the appeals process was unfair but have you actually taken it to the FoS, have you received the required 'deadlock letter' to kick things off. Providing they don't disappear, you're in a good position to have them pay out.

[slick132]

......that I take it to the regulator if I didn't like the judgement!

They've told you what to do next. So, as Buzby says, take your complaint forward to the Ombudsman.

 

our complaints procedure and how to complain

 

Don't get mad...........get even.

[sund1ata]

I don't think they liked the letter from the regulator. They've offered to replace the phone! ;-) Who knows? They may even have lurkers reading these threads.

 

Thanks for all your help. The thing is that they want to send me a replacement phone! What the hell is the point of that?? I have had to shell out for another at a cost of £352 Great British bl**dy sterling. I have asked them to send me a cheque instead. They have said: "It's against our terms and conditions." I'll take those terms and conditions and jam them up your ****.

 

Thoughts?

[slick132]

Go back to the regulator and say you would have accepted a new phone from them at the time but they refused this.

 

As a direct consequence of their prevarication, you had no option but to replace the phone at your own expense. A new phone is of no use to you now, so you require a cash refund from them equal to the retail cost of the phone they should have supplied at the time.

 

I think they lost the right to apply their T&C's when they refused to settle your claim properly at the time you claimed.

 

If this has no result via the regulator, you'll have to issue a county court claim to recoup your loss.

[buzby]

You would only have the right to a 'replacement' phone from them, even if you arranged or purchased a replacement yourself. They would provide you with a refurbished handset (as new) and you may find this stipulated in their T&Cs.

 

It may be easier and less fraught to accept the replacement and sell it on under those terms if you really do not require it. I don;t see you sticking your heels in and demanding cash will work, as refunds of money for a mobile are seldom, if ever made.