Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler1980
so basically that insurer won't insure a 100k RM watch as contents but if you get a separate insurance policy for it elsewhere and your house burns down and you lose the watch and the house your home insurer won't pay out for the house because you had a watch insured separately? Really ?
|
In reality I don’t know the outcome!
But from my experience and a couple of separate incidents reported by forum members, M&S stated that going over thier watch limit invalidated the policy!
One instance a member called to add a gold Rolex I believe and just expected to pay a slight increase in premium but was put on hold and then advised as he had already purchased the watch and had it in his possesion it invalidate his insurance and they have cancelled his policy.
I called and just asked as I was with them, they said if I owned a watch outside thier max limit they would no longer be able to insure me, I asked about not listing the item with them and having a third party insurance but they just stated as it’s outside their limit the policy is invalid.
So in theory I guess if these rules are in place some people might own a high value watch and have chosen not even to insure it but the possession alone could invalidate thier current home insurance.
But as above I’ve not heard of anyone claiming being denied cover based on something like thi.
This was a year or so back so situation may of change but worth nothing as believe many wasn’t aware of this.