nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Engagement Ring Claim

Cadenza

Hi All,

Hope you can help. We got engaged earlier this year and my partner got me a beautiful ring. Given the cost he decided to insure it, actually he had bought it in Jan '09 and insured it since then. I know....what kept him! When looking for insurance he was advised to take out home contents insurance and add it as a specific item, which he did.

We dont actually live together at the moment. I have my own place and he his. The ring was insured at his address.

Last Feb we were out on Portmanock beach skipping stones etc and my ring flew off my cold wet hand After a few devastating hours of searching and dark closing in we gave up. A few teary days later 'he' got in touch with the insurance co who asked for Garda statements etc.

Last week we were informed that we were not covered as 'he' was not actually wearing the ring and he had gifted it to me, so it was my responsibility. The policy is in 'his' name....then again, so was the invoice! For me to insure the ring would mean he'd have to give me the receipted value...is this normal?

The insurance co are sticking to their guns, however everytime 'he' calls them and relates the story to another customer care rep they appear bemused...saying 'well you're hardly going to be wearing it!'

Funny and all as this might appear, for us it's quite stressful and upsetting.

Can anyone help?????????

Find more posts tagged with

insurance claim

engagement ring

lost jewlery

Quick Links

Comments

91011

methinks this is a case for insurance ombudsman
http://www.financialombudsman.ie/

pow wow

I don't know so much if it's a case for the Ombudsman, the insurer doesn't appear to be doing anything out of the way as regards what the policy most likely says. I don't think the fact it's an engagement ring in real terms affects his lack of insurable interest in something he's effectively given away.

Assuming the ring was covered off the premises (jewellery is often only covered for theft from the insured address) you could perhaps argue that it was on loan rather than a gift (I wouldn't fancy your chances but it could be argued that engagement rings are on loan in anticipation of marriage or something like that) but even then that might be excluded.

Unless you have reason to think the insurer is acting inappropriately (i.e. the policy says it will cover it and they're now saying it doesn't) it sounds like a really unfortunate case of bad luck and bad advice. Had you been living together and held the insurance in joint names this may not have been a problem, and I know you'd expect your insurer to mention to your OH when he's adding an engagement ring to his policy that it's not actually covered once he gives it to you - but they're not obliged to.

Xcellor

Jeez that sucks. Insurance companies are whores for getting off with sh*t like this. They have no problem taking premiums but as soon as a claim comes they will do everything they can to avoid paying out. Had two run ins with insurance companies. Over the cold snap my drive way got destroyed, water got under the concrete and basically crumbled it. Insurance says wear and tear. Then I was screwed with the volcano ash during the last episode, insurance says Act of god pfo.

The only time I've actually had a good experience with insurance was getting my windscreen replaced. This was fairly painless....

dudara

Moved to Banking & Insurance & Pensions

dudara

homer911

Effectively you cant insure what you don't own, and as your name wasnt on the policy...

I can understand the insurance company's position, but I would certainly argue the case and talk to the ombudsman

dogbert27

Em, why doesn't "he" say that "he" lost the ring? It's no more disingenuous than what the insurance company are trying to pull.

He was out for a walk with the ring and he lost it. If he has it covered under his home contents insurance and has it covered as a specific item this normally means that it's covered inside and outside of the home.

I only checked this 2 weeks ago for my own fiancés ring. Another thing that people should check is to make sure that the policy covers the rings AND the diamond as some insurers argue that only the "ring" is insured, not the stone.

gandalf

Hmmm sorry for butting in but does this change after you marry or not? I have my wifes engagement ring covered under the home insurance as well and would have assumed it was covered if she lost it. I'll check the policy tonight to confirm as its up for renewal in a few months and I would prefer to ensure this is covered properly.

OP I am assuming that you were living together as well?

Cadenza

Thanks all for your comments.

Unfortunatley we cannot revise that we either live together or that he lost the ring as the truth is already recorded

We have been making quite a bot of noise with customer care on this over the past week or so. Yesterday I called pretending that I was enquiring about my bfriend insuring a ring. I 'happened' to mention that we dont live together, that I lived with my parents and was asked to hold. The rep came back saying that they had had a problem like this recently and that they couldnt insure unless my bfriend / fiancee would hold onto the ring until we moved in together or I should put it on my mothers insurance. I said that would be impossible as we'd have to disclose the value which was none of her business. They said, sorry we cant insure you.

I feel like our claim has been a learning curve for them and that they will now use us as a test case as such!

I like the idea of the ring being 'on loan'! though I cant see us getting anywhere with it.

Are we that unusual? Do ALL engaged couples live with eachother now? If not....all girls out there....do you insure your rings? Do your Fiancees happily give you the receipt and value to do so? Guys would you happily give this info? Only for this incident I would never have asked, or been told the value.

Who does 'own' the ring? I think that if our relationship were to break down I'd give it back. Does this not make it his ring? Hmmm interesting.

splashthecash

I have my wife's engagement ring covered under "specific items" on our house insurance. the policy is in my name and last summer piece broke off the diamond (i know, that not meant to happen!). anyway, i went through the insurance and the paid to get the diamond replaced. never had any problems like your having like who owns the ring, blah blah...etc but we were married when it happened.

Cadenza

Hi Splashthecash....

I think the point they're saying is he owned 'the property' yet 'the property' did not reside with him so even though its insured off the premises he had no control over it.

If we were married and living together I guess he would have? Though how would he? Your wife could go to the beach on her own and loose it.

It's nuts it's the one insurable item that is not always automatically going to 'reside' with the insurer.

Fey!

When you say it was insured as a specific item, do you mean that it was named on the house contents or covered all risks?

If it was just contents, then my understanding is that loss or damage to the ring would only be covered if something happened to it in the insured property.

All risks is, as I've been led to believe by several insurance companies, designed so that if anything happens to the ring outside of the insured property then it is covered.

If it was covered all risks, then it should be covered because he was with you, so technically, despite it being on your hand, it was lost from around his person.

Who was it insured with, and is the policy through a broker or directly with a company?

Either way, if he told the insurance company that it was an engagement ring, then they should have advised him properly as to what cover to take out and when/where the ring was covered.

If it was through a broker, then same thing on the advice. However, you should let them follow it through; that's why you use them and they get a commission.

I have been a jeweller and antique dealer for 15 years, and your story is not one I've heard before. Insurance companies are ruthless, but keep pushing them until you get a satisfactory answer, or a detailed reasoning in writing explaining why they didn't give proper advice and cover in the first place, and/or why they won't live up to the cover for which the premium was paid.

Unfortunately, in my experience, if it wasn't covered all risks, then you may have to take the hit.

If it was all risks, then fight it; you have nothing to lose.

broker2008

I agree with Fey! You own the ring, she was with you. Was it all risks or not? I haven't come across this case before. I have heard of instances where losing ring at sea is not covered, did you say it was lost in the sand or water ? This is where the true value of a good broker would be apparent.

oldyouth

It should correctly have been insured on the lady's policy as she was not resident with the person who insured it. However, it is very poor form for the insurer to refute liability as those circumstances did not effect the loss in any way.

If for instance, he had an alarm on his house but she didn't and the ring was stolen as a result of a break in, then insurers could claim it was a material fact.

Push the claim all they way, someone senior in the company will eventually review it and see sense

91011

I still think a call to financial service ombudsman will give better advice.

I have a small bit of leagal knowledge, but others with more advice could expand - an engagement ring is a a sign of a promise by one person to another and as such is still the property of the person who gave it.

Look at it from a totally different angle - Joe gives Mary engaement ring. Mary calls off engagement. Mary refuses to give back ring, Joe goes to court. Court rules that ring must be handed back to joe as it is his property and was given to mary as a promise for contract to marriage.

Back to yourselves (hope your names are not Mary & Joe:D)
As you are not yet married, the contract for what the ring was given has not been completed and therefore even if the ring was on your finger, your partner is still the owner of the ring.

Its worth the call to get an independent view of it.

3rd Floor, Lincoln House,
Lincoln Place,
Dublin 2

Lo Call: 1890 88 20 90
Tel: +353 1 6620899
Fax: +353 1 6620890

Public Office Hours
10.00hrs - 13.00hrs
14.00hrs - 17.00hrs

Email your enquiries to: enquiries@financialombudsman.ie

Cadenza

Thanks again everyone for your responses. Yes the ring was insured 'all risks', and through a broker. Strangely however the broker has not been involved since the initial claim conversation.

Found this on Google...

The most cited legal authority is a Michigan law case, Meyer v Mitnick which ruled that the giving of an engagement ring is a conditional gift , that is the engagement ring is given subject to the condition of the lady receiving it following through on her agreement to the proposal of marriage. If she doesn t follow through with the marriage, then the engagement ring remains the legal property of the man and should be returned.

Think we'll try and pursue this angle, along with the fact we were together when it happened.

In answer to another question.....I'm not actually sure where it fell off water or sand. We were skipping/spinning stones across the water (from the sand). I'm not really sure that I noticed it at the moment I lost it....ie I dont think I consciously felt it fall off and suddenly look. I 'noticed' it gone. Actually now that I think of it we have photos from earlier that day which I'm sure will show that it was on.

Cadenza

Apologies...correction / clarification

I'm not sure about 'all risks' but it is insured as a specified item under Section 3 of the policy- Personal Possessions Outside the home. 'We insure Accidental loss of or damage to valuables'

Is this 'all risks'? Our insurer is Royal Sun Alliance

oldyouth

Cadenza wrote: »

Apologies...correction / clarification

I'm not sure about 'all risks' but it is insured as a specified item under Section 3 of the policy- Personal Possessions Outside the home. 'We insure Accidental loss of or damage to valuables'

Is this 'all risks'? Our insurer is Royal Sun Alliance

Yes it is , but unless the ring is specified, the claim will be limited to a set amount per item

Cadenza

The ring is definately specified.

We're still being stone walled....on to the ombudsman for us.

Will let you know how we get on....any other suggestions / advice please keep them coming

Cadenza

Update....the MD of the Brokerage has been on to us and is appauled at this 'trick' by the Insurers.

The insurers bypassed them not only in telling us that they were not settling the claim but also in relation to preparing our statements etc to the Gardai.

They have never come across an issue such as this and have vowed to pursue it on our behalf.

Fingers crossed!

Fey!

That sounds promising.

When it all gets sorted, I think you should name the broker; companies should be recognised for good service, which this broker is obviously trying to give.

I hope that it all works out.

[Jackass]

You wanted to insure the ring and this was the procedure you were told to follow to do so.

In your knowledge the ring was now fully covered and insured.

Now that it's lost, they don't want to pay all of a sudden. Ombudsman, ombudsman, ombudsman!

You were ill avised and not giving the proper cover that you requested. Your sole intention was always to have the ring covered and you were under the impression that it was, and fight tooth and nail for the money.

They'd fight paying out on a life policy at the moment for feck sake, arguing that there's no proff that the person hasn't come back to life and is living in a coffin 6 feet under the ground!! Banks are tight at the best of times, but right now, they're thieves. Fight it, and remember it when the good times come back around.

Oh, and you might want to shop around for a new insurance provider AFTER yor dispute is resolved.

pow wow

[Jackass] wrote: »

You wanted to insure the ring and this was the procedure you were told to follow to do so.

...told by the broker. Whether the information given to the OP or the insurer by the broker was entirely accurate remains to be seen. The OP's fiance approached the broker about adding an engagement ring he bought onto his contents policy - the ring was added. He subsequently gave the ring to the OP.

All this talk of ombudsman ombudsman assumes that the guidance the OP's OH was given was correct and that now the insurer is trying to reject a valid claim. You don't know that that's the case. Unless there is some clause relating to engagement rings (there may be, as the OP said she can't be the only person who doesn't live with their fiance!), the insurer could quite feasibly be acting within the rules of the policy.

I'm not surprised the brokers are shouting from the rooftops about insurer trickery. I'd be looking more in their direction than anyone else's right now. In any case OP, your OH acted on the professional advice they provided to him and if that was incorrect, you can seek redress from them.

[Jackass]

Nope. They were put on the wrong insurance cover and weren't getting the cover they were paying for. The arm of the ombudsman stretches over brokers too you know. They are all regulated and someone will have to pay up. I've seen dispute resolution from working in banking and this is text book poor advice and a gratis payment will have to be made if the insurance they advised on does not cover the purpose it was intended for. The broker is liable if that is the case.

pow wow

I know the ombudsman covers brokers too, my point is that the OP should ascertain where the issue has arisen (i.e. with the broker or the insurer) before lodging any complaint(s) with the ombudsman - and if it is the broker they may relent without the OP having to involve the ombudsman at all.

blahblah06

The same thing just happened my mrs on the weekend however the policy is under my name only and it was obviously lost while we were out.
Im worried that there gonna pull this trick now. I only reported it 2 hours ago

Cadenza

Hi blahblablah

This case is ongoing. The insurance co want to start the process again and re-interview us, new statements, new police reports etc. Our broker is going nuts as are we as it's implying that we have something different to say. The insurance co has called us a few times but our broker says we are not to speak with them in relation to new statements.

It's going on almost 6mths! If you used a broker get him to do the processing for you, it's a lot less stressfull and upsetting.

Good luck....it would be interesting to know how you get on

dermot_sheehan

The giver of an engagement ring has an insurable interest since if the marriage does not go ahead they have a right to the ring back
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0022/sec0004.html#zza22y1981s4

blahblah06

I just got a call of the loss accesors working on behalf of the insurance and there ringing me tomorrow to take the claim over the phone. seems odd

oldyouth

blahblah06 wrote: »

I just got a call of the loss accesors working on behalf of the insurance and there ringing me tomorrow to take the claim over the phone. seems odd

Some Insurers are using voice analysis software these days which can verify the truth or a lie. If an honest claimant is dealt with in this way, it can speed up the process

blahblah06

that was pretty painless tbh. really nice woman. Have a few things to do over the next few days then im sure a decision will be made