BURGLARY CLAIM

An agent friend called to consult me on a burglary claim involving her client. The building was broken into with insured items stolen as well as damage caused to the door, grille, locks and a safe. The adjuster said that repairs to the door, grille would be paid but not for replacing the damaged locks. The safe which was also insured was badly damaged and needed replacement. The adjuster said the cost of the safe would be paid but not the cost of installation. The safe that was damaged sat on a pedestal. The cost for removing the damaged safe was rejected.

According to the policy, damage to building or premises falling to be borne by the insured would be payable. Are locks not part of the building or premises? Why should locks be excluded? I cannot understand.

The safe was insured on replacement cost basis. Would it not be fair that the cost of installation be included as part of the cost of replacement? I do not understand the stance taken by the adjuster.

I was rather unhappy to hear of the way the adjuster dealt with the claim. He may know something which I may not know after all my years in the business. Maybe members can enlighten me on the matter. My agent friend would also benefit from your advice.

• Andrew Wong My views are paying the safe but not including installation is akin to paying the damaged door but excluding transportation and labour to dismantle and install the replacement door. Locks attaching to the door is certainly part and parcel of the building. The adjuster has apparently erred or flawed in understanding his `trade'. The insured and agent ought to pursue their rights under the policy to ensure satisfaction on the claim. An analogy is when an air-cond is damaged, the compensation is not only the cost of the said air-cond but including dismantling the damaged unit, transportation and labour to install the replacement unit.
• 

  Jelssie Tay Alamak it is obvious Adjustor "claim cutting happy" to justify "fat" fees to Insurer. Sack d Adjustor. Who r they ? And d Insurer too if they allowed it. 
• 

  Wong Simon Adjuster tried to be smart n show the Insurer that they can save on claim cost so that they can have more business. Call the handling adjuster to answer for the recommendation given. Not professional!
• 

  Murali Nagalingam  I feel it can be easily solved if the agent can just ask the adjuster to justify their stand. If the adjuster cannot justify why he is not paying, then the agent has to ask the insurer to explain. I feel the fustration of the agent, as it is not the agents duty to correct the adjuster. Adjusters are suppose to be professional at their job. There is no excuse if they are new on the job as it is the responsibility of their managers to train and control them.
• 

  Chee Sing Chan can compensate for door & grille but not locks. apa logic ini?
• 
  
• 

  Raymond Huang I see two problems here. (1) Adjusters who are half-past-six should not be allowed to do field job unsupervised by a senior adjuster (2) Agents must learn the technicalities of insurance in order to be able to do a good and complete job - having selling skills alone would not be enough.
• 

  Liew Chow Kwong Similarly, the building was damaged by fire, adjuster only approve the supply of cement, brick and steel bars but not construction cost. Very simple, just transfer all the businesses to another company and this is what I do, if the adjuster tries to be funny.
• 

  Liew Chow Kwong Not only half past six adjuster and also half past six insurance claim manager.