This August, an insured is challenging our estimate of a Specialized mountain bike purchased in 2011 that was stolen from him. Indeed, the invoice did not specify if the Stumpjumper model was equipped with a shock absorber or if, on the contrary, it was without one. It should be known that "stumpjumper" at Specialized can designate the semi-rigid model, but also the full-suspension model! But the full-suspension model is distinguished by the addition of "FSR" to the model name. This one not being present on the invoice, it was only logical for the expert to take the semi-rigid model.
In the absence of proof, the price retained on the day of the loss only takes into account the least expensive model. In case of theft, it is up to the insured to bring the proof of ownership, the value of the good and sometimes its condition for the replacement value.
I take the example of the bike purchased in 2011, if the same model is no longer sold on the day of the loss on the catalog of the store, because of new series put on sale each new season, we must refer to a similar model of the year 2011.
The technology from the new materials used such as carbon, as well as all the equipment change the product, so that the same model of mountain bike version 2011 has nothing to do with the model 2017 in its composition that is why the reference of the model changes. As a result, prices naturally increase for the latest version and decrease relatively on the older series. The most telling example is the car everyone understands that giving a car brand is not enough to find its fair price. The model of the year 2011 does not have the same characteristics as that of the year 2017.
According to the indemnity principle detailed in the Insurance Code, the indemnity paid by the insurer cannot be a source of enrichment. A. Astegiano-La Rizza in their article on Actuassurance, explain the legal basis perfectly well.
As far as the field expert's practice is concerned, it is not a matter of reimbursing an insured for a bicycle purchased in 2011 on the basis of the 2017 model catalog price; the latter costing more than the invoiced purchase price and being qualitatively better than the one that was stolen, but rather of finding a good comparable to the stolen model to put the insured back in the situation prior to the loss.
On the other hand, some products are sold at a higher price due to the increase in the cost of raw materials or manufacturing (e.g. in the tools sector), which is even more marked for luxury brand leather goods, where the price of the same catalog reference has risen significantly.
To simplify matters, some companies have chosen to reimburse the replacement value of furniture on the basis of the purchase price invoiced for goods less than 1, 2 or 3 years old according to the contractual categories (furniture, household appliances, computers, etc.)
According to the insurance contracts, after having classified the goods by contractual categories, generally appearing in the lexicon of the general conditions of the insurance contract, the replacement value can be capped at a defined rate (25% for example) and for certain goods such as computers or household appliances.
I buy a telephone at 800 euros in January 2013, this good is stolen in January 2017. The expert will estimate the value at the time of the loss at 500 euros (taking into account our reasoning above) with an immediate settlement of 250 euros (corresponding to the application of a fixed depreciation rate of 10% per year calculated from the date of purchase until the date of the loss). The insured can buy back the same property within 2 years and send back the invoice to obtain a deferred payment of 250 euros.
I take the same example as before with a 25% ceiling on the deferred settlement on telephony, the deferred settlement will therefore be limited to 125 euros instead of 250... you can already do the calculation on larger amounts corresponding to the ceiling of the subscribed capital.
