Mobile phone insurers play tight on claim payments

You have spent hours searching for your mobile phone, digging your fingers into every pocket compartment of every bag and pair of trousers you own and getting other people to dial your number just in case your distinctive ringtone starts emitting from behind the couch.

Reluctantly, you have come to the conclusion that your mobile - your hotline to a social life - has been lost or stolen.

No longer will you be able to send text messages to people you like asking "how are you?" in the manner of a Vodafone advertisement.

The good news is that you were sufficiently paranoid about such an event happening that you signed up to your mobile operator's insurance policy at the time of your latest handset upgrade.

The bad news is that as you don't have a clue when or where your mobile phone went missing, the insurance company decides your claim is the result of "undue care or negligence" and won't send you a replacement phone.

Mobile phone insurance policies are typically extremely restrictive.

In general, policies will not cover repairs covered by warranty or mechanical breakdown; mobiles stolen from unattended vehicles, unless the phone was in a glove compartment or locked boot; mobiles lost or stolen when not in the possession of the person named on the policy; claims not notified to the Garda in the case of a theft or to the phone company in the event of loss or damage within 24 hours; or claims that are the result of undue care or negligence.

Insurance companies often have loose definitions of "undue care or negligence".

For example, one consumer in the UK who placed her mobile phone on the table in front of her in a restaurant was deemed not to have taken reasonable care of her phone.

Complaints about mobile phone insurance increased slightly last year, with 18 people taking their grievances to the Insurance Ombudsman, Ms Caroline Gill, compared with 15 in 2002.

Nevertheless, it is perhaps a sign of the times that the Ombudsman's annual report for 2003, published last week, is the first to break out the number of complaints received relating to mobile phone insurance into a separate category in its analysis.

"They are still a very small component of our overall complaints," says Ms Gill. "But people should make sure to always read the terms and conditions, make sure they understand the insurance and ask, 'Do I need it? Is it appropriate?'" she adds.

Policies usually set a limit on the number of claims allowed during any one period, Ms Gill notes.

One complaint made to the Ombudsman in 2003 revolved around this restriction.

The complainant successfully made a claim for the loss of her phone in June 2002 and again in March 2003.

She then discovered, following a subsequent attempted theft of her phone, that the policy allowed only two claims in any 12-month period.

The complainant argued that this limitation was not part of the cover she had taken out and the insurance company had changed its policy wording.

The Ombudsman found that this was not the case and the complaint was not upheld.

Vodafone's Stay Mobile Insurance, underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance, costs just over €5 a month.

The operator's main rival, O2, has two options depending on the value of the handset, Phonecover and Phonecover Extra, which cost €6 and €9 per month, respectively.

Although it is more expensive, the O2 policy gives wider cover, promising to issue replacement phones if the owner loses them in public places such as pubs or parks.

Vodafone's policy, however, specifies that the policy does not cover loss, theft or damage where the phone is left behind at any place to which the public has access or on any form of public transport.

"If you leave something unattended, then you may not be able to make a claim. Care has to be given to all of your property and a mobile phone is no different," Ms Gill says.

Another complaint to her office involved a case where a man's mobile phone was taken from his jacket pocket in a nightclub, but his claim was refused on the grounds that he had not taken "reasonable precautions" to prevent the loss.

The insurance company pointed out that the complainant had lost a mobile phone in similar circumstances on three previous occasions.

In taking her decision to reject the complaint, the Ombudsman concluded that the complainant could not be said to have taken all reasonable steps to avert the same incident from happening again.

"We always look at each case on its individual merits," says Ms Gill. "There could be mitigating circumstances why a phone might be left unattended, for example, if a person was in an accident."

Over the course of a year, mobile phone insurance costs from €35 (on Meteor's policy, underwritten by Homecare Insurance) to just under €120 (at Carphone Warehouse).

If an insured person does make a successful claim, they will have to pay an excess - the first part of the claim - of at least €31-€35.

In the event of a second claim, Vodafone customers will pay a €75 excess and Meteor customers pay a €66 excess, meaning it will make even less sense to continue paying premiums once you have made a claim.

Unfortunately, at this point it may be difficult to break the annual insurance contract that you have signed.

As most mobile phones cost less than €200 in any case, saying no to insurance shouldn't prove too high a risk to take, no matter how intimidating the theft statistics or how careless you are.