hifi insurance

Southweststokie posted:

I contacted John Lewis customer services by email a couple of days ago and they finally advised me in writing that my Naim equipment is covered. They have changed the policy wording which now states a single item value of £15,000 and that applies to all items and not just 'valuables'. That level of cover should satisfy the majority of Naim owners though not the 500 series owners.

Ken

I've just looked at my Premier Cover (£270) with John Lewis which was taken out in Nov'16 and there's no single item limit. I've just been on their website to see if they've changed this limit and there's no change. There is a single item limit of £3,000 for valuables (not hifi), but I have added listed valuables each more than that on my policy and it still came to £270.

count.d posted:

Southweststokie posted:

I contacted John Lewis customer services by email a couple of days ago and they finally advised me in writing that my Naim equipment is covered. They have changed the policy wording which now states a single item value of £15,000 and that applies to all items and not just 'valuables'. That level of cover should satisfy the majority of Naim owners though not the 500 series owners.

Ken

I've just looked at my Premier Cover (£270) with John Lewis which was taken out in Nov'16 and there's no single item limit. I've just been on their website to see if they've changed this limit and there's no change. There is a single item limit of £3,000 for valuables (not hifi), but I have added listed valuables each more than that on my policy and it still came to £270.

 

 

count'd,

My John Lewis cover is 'Premier Select' cover. If you check on the website for 'Premier Select' cover it is shown on page 5.

Ken

Do remember, insurance companies pay out on a like-for-like replacement value and not on as a new one. For example, if you have a NAP 300 bought for, say, £5000 five years ago it is not worth that today - they will pay on the value of a product that is five years old and not what it will cost to replace with a new one.

The replacement value reflects what you have lost and how much it costs on the second-hand market - not how much Naim is charging today. You can purchase insurance policies which will give you added benefits but these will inevitably cost you more.

The basics are that the majority of insurance policies replace what you have lost and what it was worth when the loss occurred. Something purchased five years ago has depreciated in value.

Jon,

That depends on the details of the policy.  For household contents insurance, it's not at all difficult to find (higher priced) policies that are are "new for old".

Jon, yes, in principle insurance indemnifies you from your loss, so what you have lost is restored to you as best as possible with no possibility of gaining from said loss.  That's the principle, but in reality it can be quite hard to achieve, particularly where depreciation of goods is concerned.  As such, to avoid the hassle and cost of figuring out deprecation on a load of white good and electronics, new for old policies are the norm so if you lose your 3 year old LCD TV the insurance company doesn't expect you to have to hang around on ebay hoping that the same 3 year old TV will come up second-hand, instead you can go out and buy a new replacement the same or equivalent toy what you had before.  

Now, in the world of Naim the new for old policy works the same, although there have been some attempts to interpret this to advantage; for example, a customer loses their NAC32.5, Hicap, and NAP135s in a fire.  This was Naim's TOTL preamp and power amp of the time and long out of production.  So the question is, what should it be replaced by?  Leaving aside the Statement, Naim's TOTL regular pre/power amp is now the 552 and 500.  Hmm...  Trust me, the question has been asked.  Invariably it resulted in a query from the insurance company directed to Naim for guidance. A tricky one to answer if the true principles of insurance are to be heeded.

Innocent Bystander posted:

blythe posted:

Chubb

Are you able to give an indication of cost, as they are less accessible, not doing online quotes?

Apologies for the delay in answering.
As Chubb cover several properties for us, it's impossible to say what their cost might be in your situation - it's all about total value but they are unfazed by high end hi-fi, expensive artworks, jewellery etc.
They do tend to lean towards high value homes and contents.  I suggest you give them or a broker a call.

I moved to AXA from Direct Line as they were more flexible on cover for various high level items like watches

Hi everyone just an update ive just renewed are home insurance with the AA  with unlimited cover for just 140 pounds which covers my hifi to .

Richard Dane posted:

Jon, yes, in principle insurance indemnifies you from your loss, so what you have lost is restored to you as best as possible with no possibility of gaining from said loss.  That's the principle, but in reality it can be quite hard to achieve, particularly where depreciation of goods is concerned.  As such, to avoid the hassle and cost of figuring out deprecation on a load of white good and electronics, new for old policies are the norm so if you lose your 3 year old LCD TV the insurance company doesn't expect you to have to hang around on ebay hoping that the same 3 year old TV will come up second-hand, instead you can go out and buy a new replacement the same or equivalent toy what you had before.  

Now, in the world of Naim the new for old policy works the same, although there have been some attempts to interpret this to advantage; for example, a customer loses their NAC32.5, Hicap, and NAP135s in a fire.  This was Naim's TOTL preamp and power amp of the time and long out of production.  So the question is, what should it be replaced by?  Leaving aside the Statement, Naim's TOTL regular pre/power amp is now the 552 and 500.  Hmm...  Trust me, the question has been asked.  Invariably it resulted in a query from the insurance company directed to Naim for guidance. A tricky one to answer if the true principles of insurance are to be heeded.

Just questioned John Lewis via email on this issue, they responded as follows:-

'We can certainly confirm that our contents cover provides new for old cover, we strive to put you and your family back in the exact same you were in before the time of the loss/claim.'

Good news indeed.

Ken

Read this thread, cancelled my Hiscox and took out John Lewis, all in the space of an hour.  Monthly premiums down from £70 to £20... that's and extra £50 to spend on music & wine.  (unfortunately at my age women are just too much of a struggle and I just content myself with fond memories and the odd song)

Loki posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

I assume everyone is aware, but in case not, if an insurance company judges that you are under-insured - say policy cover £100k but they assess as worth £150k, it doesn't just limit what you get in the event of a total loss, but you will get only that proportion (in this case 2/3rds) of the value of each item, which can be very significant in more common instances of partial loss. And that leads to a question to which I don't know the answer, which is with new for old, what happens if ian item was bought secondhand? Perhaps even only recently before a loss, when the only proof of ownership you might have is a receipt for the low price you paid? I have always assumed that new for old really does mean that, but that then becomes significant if you have quite a bit of old stuff of low resale but high new replacement value, especially if a loss adjustor visits and sees it, so you would need to factor the cost of buying new today (whatever is the nearest current equivalent) into your total posessions value.

 Given that Aasgaard is insured with JL, I can only disagree with your statement. All is covered, new for old, even the second hand stuff. My Tudor watch, for example, is no longer made but the Rolex equivalent is deemed to be a suitable replacement even though it is more than 8 times the cost of current Tudors, because that design is the most similar. The significant issue here is that the dealer is considered the reference point, as the specialist supplier they are considered suitably knowledgeable in their field for their quote to stand scrutiny.

I'm not sure what you disagree with?

Re secondhand: I simply declared that I assumed that it was indeed covered by new for old but that I did not know that for a fact. 

Regarding the effect of being underinsured, that is a plain fact, spelt out clearly in some policies though not in all.

Then linking the two I pointed out that the insurance company's assessment of your contents total value in the event of a claim, which would trigger a reduction per item if it is more than the total insured amount,  includes even the things you might not think about, such as the old gear stashed in the attic to which the secondhand principle would apply when the insurance company assesses value (of course, only if they get to know about it)

Aceone posted:

Hi everyone just an update ive just renewed are home insurance with the AA  with unlimited cover for just 140 pounds which covers my hifi to .

Wow, that is cheap, and doesn't seem to be available to me!

I got it direct from the AA if that helps 

Tried that - it showed unlimited as an option befor I started the online proposal form, but then all it showed at the end was a max total cover of £75k (nowhere near enough), and it won't allow much at all for valuables. 

rjstaines posted:

Read this thread, cancelled my Hiscox and took out John Lewis, all in the space of an hour.  Monthly premiums down from £70 to £20... that's and extra £50 to spend on music & wine.  (unfortunately at my age women are just too much of a struggle and I just content myself with fond memories and the odd song)

Well done! That's great. Enjoy your £50 per month.

Hiscox for me.  Been with them a number of years.  Always worth a call to negotiate price and definitely worth looking at increasing your excess.  In my view there is little point in claiming for something that does not have a reasonably significant value because of the inevitable increase in your premium if you do.  Obviously you would need to take the excess on the chin if you do need to claim, but it lowers your annual premium considerably if you are prepared to take that risk.  

Regards

Nic