[Closed] Insurance claim - am I being reasonable?

I'd take the offer and make the son pay for the difference.

Actions, even accidental ones, should have consequences.

Yes.

I am unable to get anything close to the original spec for the offer price, meaning I am not being put back in the position I was before the incident. Insurance co are claiming that giving me anything more is ‘betterment’.

They are right. They didn't agree to put you in position you were in before the damage occurred - only to pay you the equivalent cost of your laptop. Anything more is indeed betterment.

However with the massive increase in laptop costs, I am unable to get anything close to the original spec for the offer price

I don't understand this. How have laptop costs gone up? If you mean an equivalent spec to the one you bought when you bought it (i.e. it was top of the range, now it's not) then you're shit out of luck.

However with the massive increase in laptop costs, I am unable to get anything close to the original spec for the offer price

I'm surprised by this, given how quickly tech moves on, and how last years wonder number is this years average, and next years minimum.

Disagree with both posters above.

If the policy is new for old then tellem to get you a new laptop the same spec.
If they can't then tellem you'll accept a higher spec one instead.

new laptop the same spec.

I read it as an equivalent spec as when it was bought eg if top of the range then, entitled to a top of the range laptop now.

If it simply is exactly the same spec then very strange as I would be surprised if you couldn't get equivalent model for the same money or less.

I’m surprised by this, given how quickly tech moves on, and how last years wonder number is this years average, and next years minimum.

Might have something to do with a global pandemic and millions of people all working from home all of a sudden. Demand is still outstripping supply for laptops at the moment.

all down to your policy wording (have a look at the basis of settlement / valuation clauses), however new for old / reinstatement tends to operate on the basis of replacing the item with one that is equal, but not better, than that which was lost / damaged /stolen etc. ie they should offer you something that most closely approximates the spec of the original item. unless there is a clause limiting it, the value shouldn't come into it. if the cost of that similar spec has gone up due to supply / demand, it would only be betterment if they are giving you a cash pay out, rather than replacing the item

There's only one answer to this.

What does it say on your contract? They're either honouring what you've paid for or they're in breach. Stop being un/reasonable or asking third parties for opinions and go read the small print.

all down to your policy wording (have a look at the basis of settlement / valuation clauses), however new for old / reinstatement tends to operate on the basis of replacing the item with one that is equal, but not better, than that which was lost / damaged /stolen etc.

That was my thinking. Relevant clause says " Replacement will be on a like for like basis or based on the nearest equivalent in the current market"

If the policy is new for old then tellem to get you a new laptop the same spec

Yes - new for old

I read it as an equivalent spec as when it was bought eg if top of the range then, entitled to a top of the range laptop now.

If it simply is exactly the same spec then very strange as I would be surprised if you couldn’t get equivalent model for the same money or less.

You are right, I should have said equivalent. The main issue is that no-one is making a 17" 2-in1 laptop anymore, so they can't find a value, so are just offering me a price that isn't enough to buy something similar (for example a non 2 in 1, or a 15" 2 in 1) etc.

Stop being un/reasonable or asking third parties for opinions and go read the small print.

I have done that (see above) but they are claiming I am being unreasonable in insisting on a similar replacement, hence asking the question to trianguate my thinking a bit!

There'll be a clause if no equivalent can be found too, I'm betting.

New for old as I understand it means you should get the equivalent spec given to you.surely if they cant do that you shouldn't be short changed and something suitable should be paid for.can you claim on house insurance instead.might work out better if your not punished next time around.

I'm with perchy - take the insurance and your son pays any difference in cost.

I had similar some time ago. I had a top spec iMac, the second generation blue / clear one. Sent it off for repair and DHL managed to destroy it in transit. My insurance company offered me an eMac as a replacement. The spec was roughly equal but didn't have a FireWire port that was essential for the video transfer, which was the main reason for having an iMac. I argued that it wasn't a direct replacement. I managed to get an equivalent newer iMac as a replacement, i.e.: top spec iMac from the range available at the time.

There'll often be wording that if they cannot replace like for like, they would settle for cost as new

That sounds like what they're trying to do.

So if you're willing to forego the 2-in-1 functionality but you're saying you can't find a 17" laptop with 16GB RAM and a dedicated graphics card? A quick check indicates there isn't much out there and it would mean dropping to a lesser known brand (e.g. a Medion via eBuyer) so I'd probably challenge more on that basis. Get a cost for cheapest Dell (or equivalent brand) laptop that meets the spec. required and pass that to the insurance company to challenge their proposed offer.

Insurance companies are a business and margins are tight - they aren't always going to offer something suitable right away. If you can provide evidence to them though as to why their offer isn't suitable then the ball is back in their court, they are obliged to either challenge your evidence or provide a revised offer - or they open themselves up to being reported to the financial ombudsman on shaky grounds which they'll probably want to avoid.

Just an update (as I hate it when threads like this just fade awaY).

Escalated this to the complaints procedure of the third party tech support company that the insurer uses, who stuck to the offer made of £1,049 before the £150 excess. I refused that and escalated it back to the actual insurance company who have looked at the points made and the offer, and agreed that my new for old should enable me to get whatever the closest equivalent laptop is right now, and have increased the offer to £2,599, based on the closest spec 17" Dell currently available.

Thanks for all the advice, even those who told me I was wrong!

Ooft, £1049 to £2599, serious inflation.

Result !!! nice one !!!

Wow - well done. I'd have thought you'd never have got more that you originally paid for it, whatever the spec.

Good stuff.

Wow – well done. I’d have thought you’d never have got more that you originally paid for it, whatever the spec.

That's the point of new for old, inflation/price increases has to be taking into account to ensure you're still in the same situation as you were pre claim.

When you renew your insurance every year you're ment to re-evaluate the sums insured on the basis of what things are now to buy new.

My bike last year was £6600 this year the 2021 model is £7200 so I need to ensure I have coverage for that or if I under insure e.g. £7k then I'll only get that value (usually).