Hi red.sonia1 ... although you purchased the insurance at the last minute and may not have taken time to read through the full terms and conditions, the £200 single article limit is quite clearly detailed and I don't think you will have any grounds for dispute there. Single article limits are quite common on most insurance policies.

However, I am quite puzzled as to how a camera and a camcorder could be defined as a single article, I have never heard of that before.

For more info and discussion on Travel Insurance, please click here.

David

Click Here For their "what is covered" info and also to download further information. It does say that it is limited to £200 per single article, but a camera and a camcorder are two separate articles surely? Does this mean if you had your jewellery stolen it would be grouped together as one article? Also, if only your camera had been stolen would you not be able to claim because it wouldn't be regarded as a 'full article' ?

The amounts stated on their policy apply to each person listed on the policy, therefore surely the camera could one persons claim and the camcorder the other persons? However this way would mean excess for 2 claims also.

I definitely would pursue this one further. As has been stated, surely the camera and camcorder are two separate items?

Typical insurance companies for you (and yes they are in this game to MAKE money) - quick enough to take your money, slow enough paying out!

Mark

Hi red.sonia.1

Firstly may I say that I sympathise with your loss (and No, I am not associated with Tesco - or the insurance business).

I think that you will find that the key is is the link provided by Glynis:

Personal Possessions up to £1,250 (or £625 for each child). With a single article limit of £200 (child £100) and valuables limit of £200 (child £100)

If you look at the "Meaning of Words" section of your policy, I believe that it states

"Valuables" ................furs, photographic apparatus, binoculars.......

So, unfortunately, it looks as though they are correct under the "valuables limit" in "Personal Possessions".

Peter

Well found Pete (you had more patience than I did by looking further )

I still think it unfair and a little misleading to group photographic apparatus as to meaning the whole kit and caboodle in one lump. To me an item, is an item singular.

They are different items for different uses. I could understand it if for instance they meant items connected/relating to eg the camcorder ie leads, tapes etc but not a camcorder and camera as one item so to speak.

I'd not be a happy bunny if an insurance company pulled that one on me.

I'm sure that they know precisely what they are doing!

I have used Worldwide Tesco Annual Multi-trip for some years because, believe it or not, their conditions compare favourably with other policies.

Tip: They actually have different policies with different limits - the quick web purchase policy seems to offer lower limits than the ones you can get by phone.

Glynis - you seem to have the correct approach (one item each), but I guess this may be a little late

Peter

Surely a camcorder cannot be termed as photographic!??? Or is it just me

Marie

I would dispute the camcorder and camera being classed as one item as they are surely not. Have you already done this in writing and returned the cheque? It is quite common to have some toing and froing with insurers as obviously they try to get away with paying out as little as they can.

As for the individual value this is common and is standard for most policies (don't forget excess as well unless you paid extra to have it waived). I always read all the small print for policies - mainly because my boyf's camera is worth £800 so had to have him get it insured separately as he would only get £200 tops back if anything happened. I think he chanced it in the end. That will also go for engagement rings etc. so it does pay to check these things.

Good luck with the above though, they are being unreasonable there.

Your max claim is going to be £600 anyway and you have to take excess off that.

the way i read it is that a maximum amount applys to photographic equipment as a whole, rather than per item of equipment, and this is obviously different to single article limit as this would apply to items not specified. seeing as most cameras these days tend to cost more than £200 anyway it is a very low limit. What about claiming for thses items on house insurance instead(too late now obviously). go to ombudsman, but be aware that they will tell you that the insurer has to say that the case is closed, and that it has gone as far as possible with the insurer. we had a prob with insurance 2 years ago du to redundancy(they refused to pay as hubby had not been eligible for money) took them to ombudsman- took one letter and they paid up That was done on the basis that it was an ambiguous term in the policy, dont know whether you could get away with that though. but as with anything be prepared and dont leave til the last minute, esp when it comes to insurance. i make sure i always read the small print. our insurance doesnt cover sun/glasses, so have gone for contact lenses and a cheap pair of sunglasses.

red.sonia.1

Have you checked you household contents policy?

Just a thought

Peter

also found this on tesco website
it states "it is subject to limits that may be inadequate for expensive items such as jewellry, photographic or video equipment, thses items can usually be insured seperatley under your home insurance"

if you also look at it a different way, they are saying photographic and video equipment. a camera is photographic as that is what it does. a camcorder is video equipment as that is what that is used for.

Sonia ... I contacted the Association of British Insurers (ABI) in the hope of obtaining some clarification on this issue of the definition of photographic equipment, asking how two totally separate pieces of camera equipment could be constituted as one single article of photographic equipment.

Unfortunately as a trade association, they were unable to provide advice on this specific issue, as they do not have a regulatory or consumer role. However, generally speaking, they did point out that the Terms & Conditions of insurance policies, including definitions of what constitutes photographic equipment, are a commercial decision for individual insurance companies and there is no industry wide guidance on this issue. So it is therefore difficult to establish if Tesco are on their own on this particular definition of photographic equipment, or if other insurers implement the same policy.

The ABI advised that you may wish to appeal the insurance company's decision or make a formal complaint to them about it (which I understand you have already done) and failing any satisfaction, you may then wish to take it up with the Financial Ombudsman Service (which I understand you propose to do). You may already have them, but contact details are as follows:

Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza
183 Marsh Wall
London E14 9SR
Tel: 0845 080 1800
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

I hope that Tesco may reach a sensible and amicable settlement with you to avoid you having to take this matter further.

Good luck.

David

I am afraid that I see no point in taking this further. As PeteB has pointed out, there is a "valuables" limit of £200. As both the camera and the camcorder fall in to the "valuables" category, the £200 is the limit. Do not get confused with the "single item limit" as that is totally different - that is for items in the "personal belongings" category - not "valuables".
This is a shining example of the need to both read AND understand the policy you are buying. If you are taking expensive (and I use the term lightly) items on holiday, you are almost guaranteed that any "holiday" or "travel" insurance policy will be inadequate as regards covering their loss. The main reason you need travel insurance is for the medical and cancellation cover. For personal possesions you really need to insure thse under an all-risks and out of the home extensions to your home contents insurance. the penalty for failing to do so is woefully inadequate compensation for any loss.
Cheers,
Jet.

Jetnoise says it all.

You get what you pay for,

going back to the policy wording earlier- it states photo equipment and video equipment as 2 seperate things.

Care Bear - indeed they are two seperate things, but the limit for "valuables" is £200 IN TOTAL and both items are classed as "valuables".
It may be worth checking the wording to see if the limits are per policy or per insured. If the latter, and the policy covered more than one person (i.e. it was a "couple" or "family" policy), then there may be a potential for submitting more than one claim - one person for the camera and one person for the camcorder?
Cheers,
jet

jetnoise-its worth a try, if you dont ask you'll never know. as i said earlier its amazing what a letter/phonecall from the ombudsman can do!!

Care Bear - indeed they are two seperate things, but the limit for "valuables" is £200 IN TOTAL and both items are classed as "valuables".
It may be worth checking the wording to see if the limits are per policy or per insured. If the latter, and the policy covered more than one person (i.e. it was a "couple" or "family" policy), then there may be a potential for submitting more than one claim - one person for the camera and one person for the camcorder?
Cheers,
jet

As you say you need to read the policy. When someone submits a claim,then as a family it is normal to assume that the person who hanldes it will see it as such. Unfortunatly that is not how it works. It is a claim and is handled as such. It is quite normal for the lead name on the policy to submit the claim, people do need to think about this when filling in the forms. Any doubt then contact the insurer and ask first. Could save a lot of problems.

fwh