If you intend to claim new for old then you will need cover otherwise they simply wouldnāt pay out for whichever item you were claiming on.
I stated the items where I would want ānewā i.e. speakers, LP12. Other kit like CB250 Iād want replacement and not a 250DR.
You donāt have to have new, I donāt want ānew for oldā for my 18th century long case clock! 
You need to be entirely transparent with the insuranceco in matters like this, otherwise you (potentially) risk a bun-fight with a loss-adjuster around a % mark-down on your claim (āaveraging downā is one term Iāve heard used) if you have āunder-insuredā, at worst a material bun-fight over the basis of the claim itself.
Keep notes of the calls (with timings et al) when these matters were discussed.
This is absolutely correct. Donāt try to save a few quid by under insuring. If you have any doubts about cover ask the insurance company and note the time and date you spoke to them. Most insurers record their telephone calls.
Weird.
The Saga agent said that hifi and AV kit does not count as valuables and therefore the Ā£2.5k item limit does not apply to it.
I mentioned the price of a new 555DR PS and he did not even baulk at that!?
He even said that if one item in a āsetā is claimed for and they cannot buy a new one that matches the set, they will replace the whole set.
He even said that this applies to hifi systems!
Could that be mere salesman talk?
He also did me a fixed price for 3 years.
And it only took 15 mins.
That has always been my understanding (I have an insurance background). This was confirmed by my current insurer. It is essential to ensure you allow for a sufficient new for old figure for hifi and other household items provided of course you have a ānew for oldā policy. Your comment about one item in a set is not salesman talk. This is quite a common clause. Particularly relevant to a suite of furniture or a bathroom suite for example.
Yes, thatās how it was for me. I told them too but they donāt count them as āvaluablesā in the same was as a diamond ring or Rolex watch. The important thing though is youāve advised them.
Other insurance companies may be different so itās always best to declare and let them decide how to proceed.
Oddly (been with direct line for ages),in recent years when Iāve phoned to renew they always offer a better deal if Iām a bit cagey about renewal, something they never used to do.
I really thinks itās luck sometimes and who you talk to.
I suspect if you cancelled and then rang up as a ānew customerā theyād offer a good deal - new business and retention are different teams I think.
For those with several expensive guitars (and of course, this is in the states, not sure how it works in the UK or elsewhere), the āoff-siteā coverage for such items in most standard homeowners policies is awful. So if I gig or bring a few guitars to a friendās and something happens en route or while there, it can be pretty limiting. I insure my guitars separately with an outfit that specializes in insurance for musical instruments.
I donāt think the āsetā aspect really applies to Naim kit - if so, Iām tagging mine as a Statement 
But, as youāve highlighted, the lexicon and detailing of insurance matters isnāt always 100% clear to the layman, especially what is defined as āvaluablesā (I tend to look upon this term as items with higher intrinsic value which are easy to transport - the obvious being jewellery and watches). Hi-Fi it seems to many insurancecoās is now general contents BUT can be affected by item limits within this ā and this I always discuss at length when arranging cover.
I changed from Direct Line a while back as their general contents cover was very expensive when compared to others - obviously not helped by the replacement value of Naim kit/vinyl/CD collection etc,.
@Alley_Cat - Iād encourage you to explore > DIrect Line, perhaps Aviva. I always used to have ānegotiationsā with DL (comparing them to Hiscox/others) but the landscape appears to have changed now as regards (pure) contents cover. Of course, YMMV.
The thing I have always hated about any insurance is that it essentially boils down to it being a bet against yourselfā¦
A tricky moral question thenā¦if, like myself, you rip all your cdās and then consign them to a storage box. Then your cdās are stolen but because the ripped music is all backed up you restore that easily enough with zero expense. However, whether you claim for the cdās or not, do you rush out and replace them? Is there a copyright issue here?
I think this has been answered on here before(?), in that if you own the CD, you then have the right to rip-it for personal use, as you have paid for that copyright. The fact that the CD is the secondary back-up really isnāt salient IMV - if both drives failed, then youād need to re-buy that copyright via another purchase?
Put another way, if you had stored music files and tried to raise a claim for loss without evidence of purchase of the copyright (the CDs/suitable subs to Tidal et al), then this would be declined. Of course, the secondary-market purchasing of CDs makes things far murkier!
Re your car (Audi IIRC), just so I understand, is it that the case that notwithstanding the interior screen(s?) and usual engine warning lights within the instrumentation (if these still exist?), the need for oil/additive was only flagged on the app on the 'phone?
I suppose what Iām saying is thereās the temptation to take the insurance money and NOT replace the cdās.
The carā¦ after I discovered the oil needed checking via the app (which was purely by chance since itās only the second time Iāve even played with it in the x months of ownership) I then went and checked the manual to find out what to do and found out thereās a menu item to check this on the touch screen. However only the oil. Adblue checking is only (as far as Iāve discovered) via the app. No warning lights on the dash for anything BUT I did get a startup screen message to put some more adblue in when it got down to 1000 miles in the tank which, by the time I actually got around to the adblue fill up, it was saying 600 miles.
I had the same conversation with Saga. Made sure they understood that each item was expensive and above their lower valuable limit.
One of the cheapest quotes too.
I have had similar conversations with Saga 2-3 times in recent years. This concerned both HiFi and photographic equipment. In the past I have had to supply individual valuations, serial numbers, etc for each individual item over a certain threshold value. None of this is required now and, like you, I have been assured that all is properly covered. I guess the ultimate test will come if ever I had to make a claim.
Take 'photos of everything and store these securely as evidence - and keep notes with timings of the various calls. And be very careful to differentiate what could be construed as for ābusiness useā, as this requires very different cover.
It seems many insurers nowadays specify blanket-cover arrangements, and donāt drill down on items like they used to.
10Yās ago, a friend used a lap-top for home (primarily) and also work (in the days of Powerpoint presentations). It was stolen from home and the loss-adjuster disqualified the claim on the basis of ābusiness useā. It took a forceful letter pointing out that MSās PP package was widely installed on domestic/personal PCs, the lap-top was personally owned (ran only personal programmes) etc, for the insuranceco to relent.
Loss adjusters are utter scumbags in my experience - we were burgled while at home sleeping many years ago, and dealing with these people who seem to want to discredit you and your claim despite being with the insurer for over a decade (and a first claim) was extremely stressful, especially as we had a close family bereavement around this time.
As for motor insurance, I have to say Direct Line were brilliant many years ago when Mrs ACs parked car was hit by a driver who failed to leave details during a snowy patch, and later when a faulty upturned manhole cover on a country backroad bend vaulted and wrote off my car - the only annoyance was it was deemed my fault as they couldnāt identify who was responsible for the dangerous manhole cover.
Did the loss adjuster industry simply develop as theer are so many fraudulent claims? If I needed to claim again I would pay for a company to handle it for me to counter the loss adjusters and their methods.
No, it isnāt that weird, valuables are carefully defined . Watches, cameras , lenses works of art, jewellery, guns furs etc are classed as valuables
If it isnāt defined as a valuable it isnāt a valuable. It pays to download the policy before you buy .
Whilst I may be lacking a few receipts (hopefully Audio T have back ups ) I have the boxes and the photos for System Pics
I may have problems qualifying the replacement for my NAT 03, my CDX2 I think would be replaced by a NDX2
A friend of ourās had a bad experience. Her car was hit by another car which was unexpectedly out of control and veered across the road at speed. Her car was a write off. Fortunately she wasnāt hurt.
Eventually the medical evidence was that the driver of the other car had had a cardiac arrest and was unconscious by the time the accident took place. He died thereafter. The insurance companies agreed that it couldnāt be his fault because he was unconscious, so the claim was settled on a no fault basis, where both insurance companies paid their own customerās costs. Our friendās no claim bonus was adversely affected accordingly.
Gosh not heard of that insurance wriggleā¦ā¦i guess would need a court case to rule on it, and then much more expensive for the loser?