Test equipment and house insurance (UK)

[jmh]

Hi

Heaven forbid anyone has had stuff stolen but are there issues with UK house insurers and specialist (to them) stuff like 'scopes and other various equipment? Out house insurance is due for renewal and it made me think given I just forked out for a DS1154Z+ which now lurks in the workshop (aka garden shed). Our standard cover is 2.5k for sheds but looking at other company quotes some seem to have a quite narrow description of 'contents'.

I am minded to take out specialist insurance - RSGB sent flyers round with Radcom which I always throw away (and now need... hmmm).

What do others think / do  esp. where your lab is in a shed?

Ta

[mikeselectricstuff]

Sometimes there are limits on "valuable items" - just check the small print. Valuables in a shed may be an issue.

[tggzzz]

No general answer can be given - the answer is specific to a policy.

Tip for any insurance policy: spend 30s looking at what is covered, then fully read the exclusions and think of examples where each and every clause might be invoked.

The exclusion clauses are there because they can be (and probably already have been) used to deny payouts.

To short-circuit searching for a policy, see which companies "Which?" recommends.

[jmh]

Tip for any insurance policy: spend 30s looking at what is covered, then fully read the exclusions and think of examples where each and every clause might be invoked.

Quite. Our current insurer seems fine - I am querying it with them but it's taking an age. But looking at a policy from another well known insurer they make the point of describing contents as 'household items' and 'entertainment' stuff like TVs. It made me wonder if, as they are being rather specific they would argue that test gear is not entertainment equipment and refuse a claim. I've not contacted them about this because their policy is only 4 quid cheaper than our current one.

[tggzzz]

Tip for any insurance policy: spend 30s looking at what is covered, then fully read the exclusions and think of examples where each and every clause might be invoked.

Quite. Our current insurer seems fine - I am querying it with them but it's taking an age. But looking at a policy from another well known insurer they make the point of describing contents as 'household items' and 'entertainment' stuff like TVs. It made me wonder if, as they are being rather specific they would argue that test gear is not entertainment equipment and refuse a claim. I've not contacted them about this because their policy is only 4 quid cheaper than our current one.

Good luck getting an answer! I once tried to get an assurance that I was going to insure for an appropriate amount - and couldn't even get that! I hope they don't regard your enquird as preparation for making a false claim!

Insurance should always be uneconomic in the sense that you expect to pay more than you receive. In that sense you are buying peace of mind, and cutting corners negates that.

[Oldtestgear]

Another problem is with used test equipment. We once tried to get my kit insured. Absolutely no chance as most of it was second hand & of uncertain value as far as any insurer was concerned. In my experience insurance companies are quick to take a premium & even quicker to try & invalidate a claim.
Bitter? Absolutely right.

Phil

[tggzzz]

Another problem is with used test equipment. We once tried to get my kit insured. Absolutely no chance as most of it was second hand & of uncertain value as far as any insurer was concerned.

So, of course, are antiques.

Auction houses keep lists of realised prices, sold to professional valuers.

We have fleabay, which is better than nothing.

In my experience insurance companies are quick to take a premium & even quicker to try & invalidate a claim.
Bitter? Absolutely right.

Yup. No surprises there

[mikeselectricstuff]

 :not sure how applicable to household policies, but when I took out business indurance I gave them an inventory of higher value items, don't recall if this was at my or their request

[tggzzz]

I suspect it can be relevant to household policies, under the heading of "sets" or "collections".

Alternatively, have a look at the Ts&Cs of the Which? best buy insurances.

Currently a few of those are: Natwest Premier, RBS Premier, John Lewis Finance Premier, M&S Bank Premier, M&S Bank Standard, LV Home Plus, NFU Mutual Home and Lifestyle.

[Someone]

I suspect it can be relevant to household policies, under the heading of "sets" or "collections"

Also hobby related items (photography, sporting, etc), jewellery/precious negotiable items, antiques, and similar groupings of items listed separately along with nominated values.

Quite. Our current insurer seems fine - I am querying it with them but it's taking an age. But looking at a policy from another well known insurer they make the point of describing contents as 'household items' and 'entertainment' stuff like TVs. It made me wonder if, as they are being rather specific they would argue that test gear is not entertainment equipment and refuse a claim.

Usually there are specific exclusions or limits for "tools of trade" or income producing assets which when you ask them about it would also cover some keen DIY'ers spanner sets etc.

... this is before the byzantine definitions of how the damage occurs and how water flowing into your house along the ground might be one of a dozen different things aside from flooding.

[splin]

Given the scope and breadth of modern insurance companies data slurping, analytics and sophisticated risk modelling software, a good starting position is that if they will actually offer you insurance for something then your risk is likely so low that you don't need it.

"We notice that both your great grandfather and your uncle Fred's brother died of prostate cancer and you Googled 'cancer symptoms' on the 7th of June 2019, so as a male over 65 we obviously won't cover you for that - but we can offer you cover for cervical cancer for a very modest additional premium".

Reality might be a bit different - they seem to be unwilling to offer flood cover to houses at the top of hills because others in the same post code area are built on the surrounding flood plain and have no ability or flexibility to adjust their position when offered clear and incontrovertible evidence that they have it wrong. Too expensive to employ somebody with enough nouse to handle such situations - only minimum wage keyboard monkeys - "computer says noooo".

[Bud]

On topic:
Fool Coverage (1952) with Porky Pig and Duffy Duck

https://youtu.be/j_UZiwNXWVE

[tggzzz]

Reality might be a bit different - they seem to be unwilling to offer flood cover to houses at the top of hills because others in the same post code area are built on the surrounding flood plain and have no ability or flexibility to adjust their position when offered clear and incontrovertible evidence that they have it wrong. Too expensive to employ somebody with enough nouse to handle such situations - only minimum wage keyboard monkeys - "computer says noooo".

Don't forget questions like "has any house within 150m suffered subsidence?" How should I know; I'm not a surveyor and have just moved to the area.
Or "have you ever suffered flooding?". "In what timeframe?". "Forever". "All the houses in SE England are built on chalk, which is formed under the sea". Silence.
Or, as you get older, forgetting something that affected your health a few decades ago and hasn't bothered you since.

The answers to the questions are largely ignored when buying premiums, but will be examined very closely by "loss adjusters" when you make a claim.

My car was once rear-ended while stationary in a queue of traffic. The first thing the loss adjuster looked at was the tyres tread, even though that was clearly irrelevant to what happened. If the tread was illegal then my car would have been uninsured and they wouldn't have had to payout - and I would have had to declare that when taking out any other form of insurance.