Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Insurance - Accidental Damage
I had vein in a leg ulcer break and the blood ruined my carpet. I put in a claim on my Insurance but they rejected it saying it was ' accidental' which was not covered on my policy (only breakages in furniture that contained glass etc) I queried their refusal as being ,accidental, because the same thing happened 3 more times during the first week I spent in hospital following this incident. Does anyone have the same 'accidental incident' 4 times in a week? I went back to TESCO (with whom I had taken out Contents Insurance) but they remain adamant that I am not covered. Should I try to go any further ?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by julia-mag. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have looked at the policy provided by Tesco and your carpet is covered for loss or damage caused by fire, storm, flood, theft and escape of water, which is fairly typical of contents insurance.
As your incidents have not been caused by any of these events you are not covered. Bleeding on your carpet would be classed as accidental and if you did not choose to pay the extra for that then you haven't got any cause for complaint.
As your incidents have not been caused by any of these events you are not covered. Bleeding on your carpet would be classed as accidental and if you did not choose to pay the extra for that then you haven't got any cause for complaint.
Thank you for your comments, I have had carpet specialists in to try and remove stains but after 2 separate attempts they cannot get it clean. It has apparently soaked the underlay and as soon as they make the top wet it draws blood up again from the underlay (there was a lot!)
so only resolution is new carpet and underlay it would seem.
so only resolution is new carpet and underlay it would seem.
standard behaviour of an insurance company I am afraid and not at all surprised
one relation claimed under flood and said a main had fractured - and they said - that isnt a flood - he tried - blimey it was to me
another claimed for flood - and the loss adjuster said - you are underinsured so we will pay for everything except the bridge.
yup we were short of a bridge in the property - clearly there was a river flowing thro the middle of it
one relation claimed under flood and said a main had fractured - and they said - that isnt a flood - he tried - blimey it was to me
another claimed for flood - and the loss adjuster said - you are underinsured so we will pay for everything except the bridge.
yup we were short of a bridge in the property - clearly there was a river flowing thro the middle of it
"standard behaviour of an insurance company I am afraid and not at all surprised"
&
"Every insurance company has people whose sole job is to find ways of getting out of paying claims."
Two comments that are complete nonsense.
This is really very simple. If the damage caused falls within an insured peril, the claim will be paid. If it doesn't, it won't. In this particular instance the damage would have been covered had you paid the extra premium for accidental damage. As you did not, then cover doesn't apply.
What Eddie should have said is that insurance companies employ people to ensure only claims that are covered are paid for. What's wrong with that?. Insurance policies very clearly set-out what is and what is not insured, and personal policies in particular are now written in such a way that it is virtually impossible for there to be any misunderstandings.
&
"Every insurance company has people whose sole job is to find ways of getting out of paying claims."
Two comments that are complete nonsense.
This is really very simple. If the damage caused falls within an insured peril, the claim will be paid. If it doesn't, it won't. In this particular instance the damage would have been covered had you paid the extra premium for accidental damage. As you did not, then cover doesn't apply.
What Eddie should have said is that insurance companies employ people to ensure only claims that are covered are paid for. What's wrong with that?. Insurance policies very clearly set-out what is and what is not insured, and personal policies in particular are now written in such a way that it is virtually impossible for there to be any misunderstandings.
1 to 10 of 10
