Camcorder insurance

[Peter Copestake]

I have come unstuck with my domestic insurance company. Although a Sony Z5 bought second hand was covered as an extra inside and outside the home the insurers who sound like Vikings (hint) insisted on their own "experts" looking at it. As they couldn't find any sign of damage except the back-focus problem with the lens for the repair of which I was claiming and which I have been told by my own repair man is a sign that it has had a jolt, said experts put the fault down to 'wear and tear'.
They couldn't find other signs of wear and tear either and caused (repairable) damage while looking.

So my question is - has anyone found a household insurance company that does take one's own repairer's word for it
or do IAC amateur members always use separate companies for their camcorder insurance? (I imagine the pros among us would always insure as pros and not take chances)

[TimStannard]

Peter, stand up to them. If I recall correctly from what you've said here this is a known problem with this camera when it receives a drop. A drop is fair wear and tear for a football, not for a camera. You owe it not only to yourself but to everyone who pays for insurance to get them to cough up.
Do we have an IAC legal rep? If not, why not? To my mind it would be excellent use of IAC funds to pay for the occasional test case.
I'll start the ball rolling and offer £20 towards your legal fees if you fight it (I realise that goes nowhere, but all snowballs start small)

[Peter Copestake]

Thanks, Tim, that's a very thoughtful offer.

I'll need to let you know more, before we start on the legal route, though when I mentioned this to the insurers they said I could apply to the ombudsman so it wouldn't be expensive, I think.

They insist that a statement has to come from the actual repairer, not my local man who has given me the info about the Z5s susceptibility to damage. He sent it to a, as I understand it, a Sony approved guy who has the specialist tackle to see that a new lens is properly aligned. Our local man could have fitted the lens but it would still need the technical check and, being a personal friend, thought he was doing best by me and saving time to get it done by the better equipped place in one go, so it was that man who found the damage, which, by the way, the insurers technicians deny causing say it was in full working order, apart from the lens, when they returned it. This is not the point as a missing screw doesn't necessarily stop a deck working it just points to incompetence to make a judgement.

We are unsure whether the approved man will give a written report that the lens must have been damaged by the fall and I am not in direct contact with him, only through my friend, and again, I'm afraid, there is a 'by the way'. I myself didn't think the fall I knew happened would have done this damage and have only said that it was the only accident I was aware of. It is possible that I knocked the camera on a door as I was going through for the shoot when I realised the fault was present.

With hindsight I would have been better to have lied and said I knocked it off a table, but we'd still be up against their technician not seeing external damage and not seeing the internal lens displacement.

Tim, this doesn't alter the basic conflict and I do appreciate your support, but I'm not sure that one test case, unless it went to the High Court, would stop this sort of thing happening, but I may be wrong. In my youth I helped to establish a legal precedent when, as a vet, I said in court, "Do you really want to know what I think?" and the judge said "Yes, tell us what you think". I said "Everyone living in the country knows that if you open a farm gate you should shut it behind you." and that won the case.

Any other comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

[col lamb]

I think that the moral of the story is to ensure that you have specialist specific insurance for any piece of expensive kit.

Make sure that you specify what you want the cover to include.

If the discussion with the insurance company is over the phone, record the conversation, it would be nice to say to them......I am recording this conversation.......ensure that you do and keep the recording.

Tell the insurer that you will write to them spelling out the terms and conditions you require and that you have the right for a full refund if they do not confirm your requirements, write giving them a set period to respond and quote that if they do not respond you shall recive a full refund of the premium.

Then the next time you drop an expensive piece of kit make sure it is from a great height.

[TimStannard]

I think that the moral of the story is to ensure that you have specialist specific insurance for any piece of expensive kit.

Col: Whilst this might make a good deal of sense, I think it makes no difference in this case as the argument is simply whether the drop caused the problem and, if it did, whether the drop is considered "fair wear and tear". This would be the case whether the item had specialist insurance or not.

Peter: Please keep us informed as to the progress. It sounds like you won't need it but my offer still stands. Also: Your time in court sounds like material fr a cracking little (one or two minute) drama.

[col lamb]

Point taken Tim

If I was in Peters position I would send a formal letter to the insurer saying that I do not believe that the fault is as a result of wear and tear, and I would suggest that they have a second chance of undertaking the repair, the letter would also include a statement that they have 31days from the date of the letter to respond.

I would also include text stating that if they have not advised me that they will accept full responsibility for the cost of the repair then I will send the camcorder to a Sony Authorised service centre and ask them to quote for them to provide a report on the fault and include in their report a cost to repair and also the cost of the report.

Finally I would advise that I will have the repair undertaken and seek reimbursement of the cost of the repair and report plus expenses through the small claims court

[TimStannard]

Good advice, Col. And I'll still stump up £20 if Peter is out of pocket!

[col lamb]

Now that I think about it I had a fault with my Sony many years ago. I had a three year warranty on it that the shop sold me and in the last week it failed to start up.

I rang the shop where I bought it from and they said that I should return it to them, but as it was just before a Bank Holiday I stated that I would need to drop it off that day or else the the warranty would expire.

The shop said no problem drop it off after the Bank Holiday and they would ensure that it would be repaired OK.

That did not happen the insurer baulked at the cost, I had to threaten the shop with small claims case and they relented and I received the repaired camcorder foc.

It needed new heads so it was not a cheap repair

[Peter Copestake]

A result at last!

It has taken six months from when the accident happened but we banked the cheque for the full cost of the repairs yesterday. We may have been lucky - I'll explain.
A brief recap. The insurers insisted on their own agents checking the damage. They claimed the cause was wear and tear though they found no evidence for this as I know because when I started causing a rumpus I asked for a copy of their report. When this came it included a transcript of one of the interrogations they had put me through and I was able to point out that this included something I couldn't possibly have said (that I had gone to London to collect it - it had come by courier - I probably said it was "sent from London"). I was also able to point out that under the agents' terms they had the right to dispose of the camcorder if they didn't get instructions about what to do with it. So I was able to point out that if it hadn't been for my persistent phone calls the insurers would have had to pay for complete replacement. That was the first victory and they sent a cheque for £75 for the delay and inconvenience but still wouldn't accept responsibility fot the damage.

So my local chap sent the camcorder to the recognised Sony repair man who is well known to him and explained the difficulty I was having and he in turn was very helpful, not only fitting and checking the new lens but also commenting on the other faults he found which included a missing screw from the tape mechanism and two missing screws from the top handle, plus "edge tearing to a number of flexi-prints connected to the main board" which did not affect their function but indicated inexpert intrusion.

Having read the insurer's agents' report I knew that they had claimed that they had investigated the tape mechanism and found no fault and that they claimed there was no other internal, or external, damage, which is why they argued that it was wear and tear.

Thus I was able to argue that either they had caused the damage (readers will remember the camera was second hand) or that they hadn't investigated as thoroughly as they'd claimed. Therefore they were not competent to judge the validity of the claim.

Saga accepted this and my complaint that I was treated as dishonest in the two 40 minute interrogations and have said on the phone that they are "reviewing their procedures".

Colin is the only one to have offered advice as to what to do in future - use specialist insurers.

If others have had better experience than mine with domestic policies I'd be glad to hear. I am also wondering what the value of our Z5 is now. It has a new lens fitted at a cost of £1400 odd and a thorough checkover that it is in full operating order so nearly new value?

[col lamb]

Glad you are sorted.

Just looked on ebay, £1300 seems the low end of the for sale range

[TimStannard]

Well done Peter! Glad you persisted.