If you expect to find some bling under the tree this Christmas, your new year\u2019s resolution might be to ensure you get that treasure insured. <\/p>\n
But before you do, you need to be aware of just what that insurance<\/a> policy covers \u2013 and why, should you lose or have your item of jewellery stolen, it may not be possible to replace it on a like-for-like basis. <\/p>\n Given fluctuating prices of precious metals and gems, insurers are increasingly looking at just what jewellery people are insuring with them.<\/p>\n Gold, for example, has rocketed in price by almost 60 per cent so far this year, as has silver, while diamonds have fallen by about 30 per cent in recent years. <\/p>\n It means that insurers are looking for more regular valuations.<\/p>\n A spokeswoman for Aviva<\/a> says that when insuring any diamond jewellery you\u2019ll need the diamond certificate, a detailed professional valuation as well as the purchase receipt. <\/p>\n The insurer also recommends having your jewellery professionally valued every two years. Chubb Insurance suggests you do it every year.<\/p>\n While an accurate valuation may offer you comfort, it doesn\u2019t mean this is what an insurer will always pay out. <\/p>\n Many of us, when we get a new piece of diamond jewellery, will add it to our home insurance policy. For items in excess of about \u20ac5,000, this will typically mean adding it as a specified item and paying more for its cover on the overall policy.<\/p>\n This, we expect, is enough to ensure cover to the amount the item is insured for \u2013 particularly if we have the item regularly valued \u2013 so that we could go out and buy a similar item again, typically from the same jeweller. <\/p>\n However, just because you have a piece of jewellery insured for \u20ac20,000 doesn\u2019t mean that, if lost or stolen, the insurer will simply write you a cheque for this amount.<\/p>\n Some insurers might cover the whole replacement cost, but valuer Carol Clarke says that in her experience some may only offer a proportion of the cost \u2013 and won\u2019t allow you buy the replacement yourself, but instead will source it for you.<\/p>\n For example, should you lose your Appleby\u2019s diamond ring, which you paid \u20ac10,000 for 15 years ago, one would expect that your insurance policy will pay out an updated valuation, of, let\u2019s say, some \u20ac15,000 for that ring, which means you can go straight back to Appleby and buy a diamond ring of a similar quality again. <\/p>\n Right? Not so fast.<\/p>\n Firstly, according to a spokeswoman for Aviva, the amount your diamond ring is insured for is an \u201cupper limit\u201d of cover. Aviva will \u201cnot pay more than the current cost to replace the item to a comparable specification\u201d. <\/p>\n So, while you might be paying out, say, \u20ac200 a year for cover of \u20ac20,000 for an engagement ring, this is a misunderstanding on your part (one the insurer has probably addressed in small print). The \u20ac20,000 is rather an \u201cupper limit\u201d \u2013 as opposed to a fixed amount that you will be reimbursed.<\/p>\n According to Aviva\u2019s policy notes, for example: \u201cIf we decide to pay a cash amount to settle the loss or damage, we will not pay more than a contractor appointed by us would have charged for the repair, replacement or reinstatement.\u201d<\/p>\n So then, what happens in practice is that the insurer will appoint a loss adjuster, who will assist them in the \u201cvalidation and settlement of jewellery claims\u201d. <\/p>\n But this loss adjuster might source the ring themselves \u2013 as Aviva notes in its policy documents, \u201cif a replacement is required then this is generally manufactured specifically for the policyholder and is bespoke to them\u201d.<\/p>\n But what if they want to go back to Appleby for sentimental reasons? Or because they appreciate the craftsmanship a certain jeweller might offer \u2013 and which might mean the ring will hold its value or appreciate over the long term?<\/p>\n This is dependent on the insurers allowing you to do so \u2013 and they are under no obligation to do so, as per the terms outlined in many of their policies. <\/p>\n A spokesman for FBD, for example, says it has \u201cdiscretion\u201d to settle the claim through a number of means. Firstly, it can replace the property with the closest possible match where it has been damaged or stolen; or it can pay the customer the amount of the loss or damage \u201cwhere repair or replacement is not possible\u201d. <\/p>\n