Reduced Settlement If You Take Cash

[ScattyAnnie]

I had a jewelley claim with Aviva and they offered me jewellery store coupons or cash, the cash being 25% (I think) less than the coupons. As the items I lost were mostly sentimental value and could not be replaced with moden day equivalents, I accepted the reduced amount in cash. I then read in the Daily Mail Money Mail ages ago that insurance companies cannot reduce the amount they pay even if they pay you cash and not coupons. Does anyone have any correct advice about this>??>

[factor-fiction]

I don't know the legal position but it seems fair enough to me and the deal seemed acceptable to you. With cash you could probably find a better detail anyway than with coupons. They probably get a commission from the retailer so can be more generous with coupons

[EDDIE51]

The deal is you get offered the cash price or an ' extra ' 25% if you take coupons.
The insurance company will be getting a 'deal' on the coupons, they will be buying them at 50% or more under face value , so they can afford to give you a bit more.
Remember , all new jewellery is sold at 100% mark up so the real value is 1/2 what you pay. Use the cash to buy some nice second hand jewellery which is far better value as it has no mark up.

[SirOracle]

Come off it eddie. So a jeweller or any retailer of 2nd hand jewellery sells at the same price as he bought it. Would not last 5 minutes in business.

[EDDIE51]

Not what I was saying, new jewellery has a minimum mark up of 100% , 2nd hand stuff is sold at a profit but a lot lower % more like 25%.

[Peter Pedant]

The coupons take some of the sting out of the amaxing mark up retail jewellers put onto their objaaays. 100% is not uncommon

Cash I think is for auction.

The assessment on the Antiques RS take this into account

Loss adjusters love scr+wing women and children - they should be pop singers I think...

[SirOracle]

25% mark up is not NO mark up, as you said in your post.

[Peter Pedant]

O come on boys - let us get back to the q

Annie - this seems to think it is lawful:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=3245314

[Peter Pedant]

oh,
read.....

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/92/92-insurance-claims.html

at one place they say - cash no discount
and at another say it is ok to specify a favoured....

worth a go - or ringing up the ombudsman at least

[woofgang]

PP I just read that article and it seems that the deciding factor is that the insurer has the right to decide how an article can be repaired/replaced (specify a repairer or a retailer) provided that the insured person can get the entitled repair/replacement using the specified process. If they can't, then the insurer must deal with them in such a way that they can get the repair/replacement to which the insurance entitles them. If the person insured CHOOSES not to use the insurer's process, then the insurer is entitled to reduce the settlement by any difference that it would cost the insurer.
In the OP's case, it seems that she CHOSE NOT to receive direct replacements for her lost items; and also CHOSE NOT to accept the value in vouchers, therefore the insurance company would appear to be entitled to give her a cash amount equivalent to what it cost them to buy the vouchers. Sadly it seems that in this case, any sentimental value formed no part of the insurance cover.