TV INSURANCE CLAIM ADVICE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2014
Posts
27
Hello all, im gutted that ive accidently damaged the screen on my 3D Sony 47" 807a tv which cost me £1299 in 2013. I have accidental damage cover on my home insurance in place so i contacted them. The guy on the phone told me to hold the line and came back to me offering £379 for the cost of a replacement 48" LG set, telling me its 4k and 1" bigger. I told him im not happy with that as my Sony was i high end tv at the time and he has chosen a lower end tv, so im waiting for a manager to call me back within the next 48hrs to discuss it further.

My argument is that spending £1299 on a tv in 2013 is worth £1520 in todays money, meaning i will go for ether a Sony A9 or a LG CX as a replacement to get the best performance quality. And even though i understand his 4k offering is a higher spec on paper, i believe that my older flagship at the time 1080p Sony 807a would still out perform lower end 4k tvs in terms of picture quality ect. When i originally bought it back in 2013 the were lots of cheaper tv's on the market with the same specs (like a bush @ £399) but i went for the higher quality.

So my question is, has anyone got any advice that will help my case for when the manager calls me back?

Thank you
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2013
Posts
9,150
I suspect a 1300 TV from 2013 is equivalent to a low end TV now tbh. Tech moves on. If its model name is 47w807 its one down from the flagship, but I still stand by my statement.
 
Last edited:
Associate
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2014
Posts
27
Its been a really good tv, even if they offered a repair screen i would go for that. I just dont want something thats not as good, i.e hdmi sockets, refresh rates ect. I will also loose my 3d movies too

Im also thinking about how well my massive non 3d blu ray collection would upscale on a low end 4ktv if i took that option? im so gutted.

Or would anybody be able to help on what price range in todays tv's would equal, or be slightly better than the my 2013 1080p 47w807, and upscale well if i go to 4k ? Thanks for the help m
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Associate
Joined
18 Apr 2020
Posts
779
Its been a really good tv, even if they offered a repair screen i would go for that. I just dont want something thats not as good, i.e hdmi sockets, refresh rates ect. I will also loose my 3d movies too

When my TV was accidentally damaged the insurer offered me a replacement and as my plasma was 3D the replacement also had to be 3D. They then offered me some cash instead, around £800 or so IIRC, which I took and put towards something better than they were offering. The TV on offer wasn't terrible, but as it was LCD and my damaged set was a plasma then it wouldn't really be good enough for me (plasma tech had disappeared by then).

What does your insurance policy state for replacements, can they offer you a replacement or do you have to take cash/vouchers?
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Jan 2004
Posts
7,663
Location
Chesterfield
The idea of insurance is to put you back in the position you were in prior to the loss - no better, no worse.

To argue your 2013 purchase's value in "today's money" isn't reasonable.

The set they are offering you is most probably better than your damaged set in just about every way due to the advancements in technology alone!
 
Associate
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2014
Posts
27
The idea of insurance is to put you back in the position you were in prior to the loss - no better, no worse.

To argue your 2013 purchase's value in "today's money" isn't reasonable.

The set they are offering you is most probably better than your damaged set in just about every way due to the advancements in technology alone!

You reckon a low end cheaply made telly now, is better than a high end spec 8yrs ago? Have a word with yourself!
 
Associate
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2014
Posts
27
When my TV was accidentally damaged the insurer offered me a replacement and as my plasma was 3D the replacement also had to be 3D. They then offered me some cash instead, around £800 or so IIRC, which I took and put towards something better than they were offering. The TV on offer wasn't terrible, but as it was LCD and my damaged set was a plasma then it wouldn't really be good enough for me (plasma tech had disappeared by then).

What does your insurance policy state for replacements, can they offer you a replacement or do you have to take cash/vouchers?

I cannot find the t's&c's of there policy on line, but i think its old 4 new/ like 4 like replacement, currys vouchers? you dont say when your incident happened, as 3d is obsolete? thank s m
 
Associate
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2014
Posts
27
The irony.

Maybe they'll up it abit, something like a KD49XH8196BU

As long as it performs well???? as good as the w807 ? then happy days! Example: I remember that a mate of mine in 2008 bought a new then top end sony kdl-40v4000 tv, and 4 years later he sold it on to a friend in order to buy a new same spec panasonic for £370, thinking tech had moved on, and thinking it will be at least the same if not better, as you would 4 years on? but NO the picture in sd was shocking, i seen it! although the blu ray picture was ok ish on it. But i felt for him as he regretted selling the sony on. So that's the reason why im not confident in a newer up to date low end tv!
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
3D is dead technology.

So to say your losing that is like saying that you want your VHS player replaced with another VHS player when they don't make them any more. Completely unreasonable albeit annoying. It's not their fault you bought into dead technology.

Home insurance is not a smart thing to use for minor claims like this. Your excess and increase in premiums will be more than the pay out.

8 year old TV. It would have likley died of natural reasons if you didn't damage the screen within the next few years. It's fair to say you got your money's worth out of it.

To ask for a £1500 oled is laughable.

As for the LG it will likely be superior to your Sony. Tech has moved on a lot and 4k beats 1080p. Your Sony wouldn't have smart features for example or of it did they won't be anything like what's available today. It won't have HDR. It won't have arc. Essentially your TV is a relic and it was an LCD to ask for an oled is like asking for them to replace your dirty diesel suv with a Tesla because they don't make 5 litre diesel engines anymore.

You can try haggling but your expectations are pretty ridiculous.

Your TV is now crap. Your living in the past. There is a reason why DVD's second hand are worth buttons and second hand blu rays are worth 5 times as much. Tech moved on.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2014
Posts
27
3D is dead technology.

So to say your losing that is like saying that you want your VHS player replaced with another VHS player when they don't make them any more. Completely unreasonable albeit annoying. It's not their fault you bought into dead technology.

Home insurance is not a smart thing to use for minor claims like this. Your excess and increase in premiums will be more than the pay out.

8 year old TV. It would have likley died of natural reasons if you didn't damage the screen within the next few years. It's fair to say you got your money's worth out of it.

To ask for a £1500 oled is laughable.

As for the LG it will likely be superior to your Sony. Tech has moved on a lot and 4k beats 1080p. Your Sony wouldn't have smart features for example or of it did they won't be anything like what's available today. It won't have HDR. It won't have arc. Essentially your TV is a relic and it was an LCD to ask for an oled is like asking for them to replace your dirty diesel suv with a Tesla because they don't make 5 litre diesel engines anymore.

You can try haggling but your expectations are pretty ridiculous.

Your TV is now crap. Your living in the past. There is a reason why DVD's second hand are worth buttons and second hand blu rays are worth 5 times as much. Te
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it’s a reference to the character in the godfather films - especially given a few of them are used as avatars on here.

Sonny Corleone and homage to Sonny Liston too. People remember him as the one Ali beat for the title but Liston was circa 40 years old apparently and Ali was like 22. Back in those days that's like fighting your grandad.

Liston was the most intimidating fighter of his day, and considered by some, at the time of the Clay fight, to be among the best heavyweights of all time. Many were reluctant to meet him in the ring. Henry Cooper, the British champion, said he would be interested in a title fight if Clay won, but he was not going to get in the ring with Liston. Cooper's manager, Jim Wicks, said, "We don't even want to meet Liston walking down the same street."

Boxing promoter Harold Conrad said, "People talked about [Mike] Tyson before he got beat, but Liston was more ferocious, more indestructible. ... When Sonny gave you the evil eye—I don't care who you were—you shrunk [sic] to two feet tall." Tex Maule wrote in Sports Illustrated: "Liston's arms are massively muscled, the left jab is more than a jab. It hits with true shock power. It never occurred to Liston that he might lose a fight." Johnny Tocco, a trainer who worked with George Foreman and Mike Tyson as well as Liston, said Liston was the hardest hitter of the three. Several boxing writers actually thought Liston could be damaging to the sport because he could not be beaten. Liston's ominous, glowering demeanor was so central to his image that Esquire magazine caused a controversy by posing him in a Santa Claus hat for its December 1963 cover.

Liston learned to box in the Missouri State Penitentiary while serving time for armed robbery. Later, he was re-incarcerated for assaulting a police officer. For much of his career, his contract was majority owned by Frankie Carbo, a one-time mob hit man and senior member of the Lucchese crime family, who ran boxing interests for the Mafia. The mob was deeply engaged in boxing at every level at the time, and Liston was never able to escape being labeled as the personification of everything that was unseemly and criminal in the sport, despite the fact that his criminality had been in the past. He distrusted boxing writers, and they paid him back, often depicting him as little more than an ignorant thug and a bully. He was typically described in thinly veiled racist terms—a "gorilla" and "hands like big bananas". Author James Baldwin understood Liston perhaps better than anyone in the press and sympathized with him and liked him, unlike boxing writers. He said, "Liston was the big Negro in every white man's hallway." He was a man who, according to Ali biographer David Remnick, "had never gotten a break and was never going to give one".

On the other hand, Clay was a glib, fast-talking 22-year-old challenger who enjoyed the spotlight. Known as "The Louisville Lip", he had won the light heavyweight gold medal at the 1960 Olympics in Rome, Italy. He had great hand and foot speed and lightning fast reflexes, not to mention a limitless supply of braggadocio. However, Clay had been knocked down by journeyman Sonny Banks early in his career, and, in his previous two fights, had eked out a controversial decision against Doug Jones and—more seriously—was knocked down by a left hook at the end of round four against the cut-prone converted southpaw Henry Cooper. Clay was clearly "out on his feet" in his corner between rounds, and his trainer, Angelo Dundee, stalled for time to allow Clay to recover. Although Clay rallied to win the fight in the next round, it seemed clear to many that he would be no match against the daunting Liston, who seemed a more complete boxer in every way than Cooper.

The brash Clay was equally disliked by reporters and his chances were widely dismissed. Lester Bromberg's forecast in the New York World-Telegram was typical, predicting, "It will last longer than the Patterson fight—almost the entire first round." The Los Angeles Times' Jim Murray observed, "The only thing at which Clay can beat Liston is reading the dictionary," adding that the face-off between the two unlikeable athletes would be "the most popular fight since Hitler and Stalin—180 million Americans rooting for a double knockout." The New York Times' regular boxing writer Joe Nichols declined to cover the fight, assuming that it would be a mismatch. By fight time, Clay was a seven-to-one betting underdog. Of the 46 sportswriters at ringside, 43 had picked Liston to win by knockout.

Liston, however, brought weaknesses into the Clay fight that were not fully apparent at the time. He claimed to be 32 years old at the time of the bout, but many believed that his true age was closer to 40, perhaps even older. Liston had been suffering from bursitis in his shoulders for close to a year and had been receiving cortisone shots. In training for the Clay fight, he re-injured his left shoulder and was supposedly in pain striking the heavy bag. He secretly resorted to heavy icing and ultrasound therapy after each training session. And, ironically, because of his dominance, Liston had actually logged little ring time in the past three years. Between March 1961 and the Clay fight, Liston had fought three times and won each bout with first-round knockouts—meaning that he had fought a total of just over six minutes during a 35-month stretch.

A lot of people think the fights were fixed by the mob also. Because Liston was that good and that powerful. We will never know but he was the hardest hitting boxer of all time according to the same guy who trained him, foreman and Tyson all of which are regarded as the hardest hitters ever.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2011
Posts
2,739
Sonny Corleone and homage to Sonny Liston too. People remember him as the one Ali beat for the title but Liston was circa 40 years old apparently and Ali was like 22. Back in those days that's like fighting your grandad.

Liston was the most intimidating fighter of his day, and considered by some, at the time of the Clay fight, to be among the best heavyweights of all time. Many were reluctant to meet him in the ring. Henry Cooper, the British champion, said he would be interested in a title fight if Clay won, but he was not going to get in the ring with Liston. Cooper's manager, Jim Wicks, said, "We don't even want to meet Liston walking down the same street."

Boxing promoter Harold Conrad said, "People talked about [Mike] Tyson before he got beat, but Liston was more ferocious, more indestructible. ... When Sonny gave you the evil eye—I don't care who you were—you shrunk [sic] to two feet tall." Tex Maule wrote in Sports Illustrated: "Liston's arms are massively muscled, the left jab is more than a jab. It hits with true shock power. It never occurred to Liston that he might lose a fight." Johnny Tocco, a trainer who worked with George Foreman and Mike Tyson as well as Liston, said Liston was the hardest hitter of the three. Several boxing writers actually thought Liston could be damaging to the sport because he could not be beaten. Liston's ominous, glowering demeanor was so central to his image that Esquire magazine caused a controversy by posing him in a Santa Claus hat for its December 1963 cover.

Liston learned to box in the Missouri State Penitentiary while serving time for armed robbery. Later, he was re-incarcerated for assaulting a police officer. For much of his career, his contract was majority owned by Frankie Carbo, a one-time mob hit man and senior member of the Lucchese crime family, who ran boxing interests for the Mafia. The mob was deeply engaged in boxing at every level at the time, and Liston was never able to escape being labeled as the personification of everything that was unseemly and criminal in the sport, despite the fact that his criminality had been in the past. He distrusted boxing writers, and they paid him back, often depicting him as little more than an ignorant thug and a bully. He was typically described in thinly veiled racist terms—a "gorilla" and "hands like big bananas". Author James Baldwin understood Liston perhaps better than anyone in the press and sympathized with him and liked him, unlike boxing writers. He said, "Liston was the big Negro in every white man's hallway." He was a man who, according to Ali biographer David Remnick, "had never gotten a break and was never going to give one".

On the other hand, Clay was a glib, fast-talking 22-year-old challenger who enjoyed the spotlight. Known as "The Louisville Lip", he had won the light heavyweight gold medal at the 1960 Olympics in Rome, Italy. He had great hand and foot speed and lightning fast reflexes, not to mention a limitless supply of braggadocio. However, Clay had been knocked down by journeyman Sonny Banks early in his career, and, in his previous two fights, had eked out a controversial decision against Doug Jones and—more seriously—was knocked down by a left hook at the end of round four against the cut-prone converted southpaw Henry Cooper. Clay was clearly "out on his feet" in his corner between rounds, and his trainer, Angelo Dundee, stalled for time to allow Clay to recover. Although Clay rallied to win the fight in the next round, it seemed clear to many that he would be no match against the daunting Liston, who seemed a more complete boxer in every way than Cooper.

The brash Clay was equally disliked by reporters and his chances were widely dismissed. Lester Bromberg's forecast in the New York World-Telegram was typical, predicting, "It will last longer than the Patterson fight—almost the entire first round." The Los Angeles Times' Jim Murray observed, "The only thing at which Clay can beat Liston is reading the dictionary," adding that the face-off between the two unlikeable athletes would be "the most popular fight since Hitler and Stalin—180 million Americans rooting for a double knockout." The New York Times' regular boxing writer Joe Nichols declined to cover the fight, assuming that it would be a mismatch. By fight time, Clay was a seven-to-one betting underdog. Of the 46 sportswriters at ringside, 43 had picked Liston to win by knockout.

Liston, however, brought weaknesses into the Clay fight that were not fully apparent at the time. He claimed to be 32 years old at the time of the bout, but many believed that his true age was closer to 40, perhaps even older. Liston had been suffering from bursitis in his shoulders for close to a year and had been receiving cortisone shots. In training for the Clay fight, he re-injured his left shoulder and was supposedly in pain striking the heavy bag. He secretly resorted to heavy icing and ultrasound therapy after each training session. And, ironically, because of his dominance, Liston had actually logged little ring time in the past three years. Between March 1961 and the Clay fight, Liston had fought three times and won each bout with first-round knockouts—meaning that he had fought a total of just over six minutes during a 35-month stretch.

A lot of people think the fights were fixed by the mob also. Because Liston was that good and that powerful. We will never know but he was the hardest hitting boxer of all time according to the same guy who trained him, foreman and Tyson all of which are regarded as the hardest hitters ever.

Completely agree.

OP if you regurgitate this to your insurer you might bore them into submission!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom