The Lemon Fool

My six month old freezer stopped working a few days ago. The frozen food inside is ruined. Who is responsible for the cost of replacement?

John

Do you have insurance? What does it say?

I guess the freezer comes with a warranty. The warranty is unlikely to cover the food in the freezer but will repair/ replace the freezer. I'd suggest it's up to you to insure the freezer contents. It's often an optional extra on your home contents insurance.

Almost all home insurance policies include freezer contents cover

https://www.gocompare.com/home-insuranc ... nts-cover/

The problem is that there will probably be an excess and also I have found that claiming on an insurance policy usually results in a higher renewal premium so you end up paying yourself anyway in the end for small to moderate claims

If the problem was caused by a fault in the freezer you could try going after the retailer first?

For information, a Beko guarantee I found online says:

"This guarantee is limited to the cost of repairing the product. To the extent permitted by law, the Manufacturer does not accept and will not be held liable for any financial loss incurred in connection with the failure of any product to operate in accordance with the expected standards. Such financial loss includes but is not limited to loss arising from:

...
- Damaged food..."

https://www.beko.co.uk/guarantee-terms

Yours may or may not be similar. Whether it's worth testing in court I don't know.

Insurance may be an easier route if yours covers it.

Scott.

Yes my insurance covers it but if it is not my fault then I'm not sure I should bear the excess and possible loading on premiums.

John

Your contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer.
It could be argued that a freezer which fails after 6 months was never fit for purpose and therefore you are entitled to reject it.
Tie together "pay for my food" and "rejection + refund" and a retailer might be persuaded to at least meet you half way.

There is always the small claims court. Freezer fixed under warranty. Food claimed on insurance. Excess claimed against retailer.

redsturgeon wrote:Yes my insurance covers it but if it is not my fault then I'm not sure I should bear the excess and possible loading on premiums.

John

That is life.

Dod

I wonder if your contract is with the retailer and any rights you have are contained within the Sale of Goods Act?

If so then your claim should be to the retailer. If that fails you could chose to take them to a small claims court. I suppose your argument would be that in today's modern world it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a new freezer will not fail after six months.

But frankly who wants all that hassle? Check your household insurance and see what the impact of making a claim is? You may have protected claims?

I'm sorry I couldn't be more constructive.

Well ... err ... remember there's always Trust Pilot

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:[You may have protected claims? ...

I haven’t heard of “protected claims” but if that means protected no claims bonus or similar, such protection doesn’t stop increases in the premium itself following a claim.

redsturgeon wrote:Yes my insurance covers it but if it is not my fault then I'm not sure I should bear the excess and possible loading on premiums.

John

In real life there is risk.

In the UK, which follows the EU line on these matters, your redress is with the retailer. Your retailer is on the hook for the freezer device itself per this, not the contents, It is no concern of the retailer whether you loaded the appliance with cat food or caviar. That is your risk. Or at the least between you and your insurer.

The slightly ambiguous but defensive wording of the manufacturer is because a) other jurisdictions follow other liability pathways, and b) they want to be sure that you don't even bother trying to sue them, and c) that leaflet/etc could end up in any one of very many jurisdictions.

I am very glad that I no longer manufacture anything sold to UK consumers.

dspp

redsturgeon wrote:My six month old freezer stopped working a few days ago. The frozen food inside is ruined. Who is responsible for the cost of replacement?

It's really very simple in legal terms.

The fact that the freezer has failed after just 6 months means that there's been a breach of contract on the part of the retailer.

Reasonably foreseeable consequential loss can be claimed for a breach of contract.

It's entirely foreseeable that if a freezer fails then its contents will be ruined, and that loss is therefore also recoverable.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the warranty is in addition to your legal rights, not in replacement for them.

Likewise, taking out insurance to cover such losses is partly to avoid the hassle of having to claim the loss from the retailer, but it doesn't mean you're unable to do so. It's the same as if your car's run into by a third party. You can sue them for the cost of repairs etc but if you have comprehensive cover you may, as a matter of convenience, simply choose to claim on your own policy, even though there's a cost to doing so.

Clitheroekid wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:My six month old freezer stopped working a few days ago. The frozen food inside is ruined. Who is responsible for the cost of replacement?

taking out insurance to cover such losses is partly to avoid the hassle of having to claim the loss from the retailer, but it doesn't mean you're unable to do so. It's the same as if your car's run into by a third party. You can sue them for the cost of repairs etc but if you have comprehensive cover you may, as a matter of convenience, simply choose to claim on your own policy, even though there's a cost to doing so.

Could the insurance company not pay out the claim and then go after the retailer or manufacturer for reimbursement of the cost? If then successful, the insurance company would not be out of pocket and therefore should not raise the premium.

I would have thought that motor insurance works the same way if the accident was 100% the fault of the other driver. Your insurance may pay out to you but then they go after the other driver's insurance.

Lootman wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:My six month old freezer stopped working a few days ago. The frozen food inside is ruined. Who is responsible for the cost of replacement?

taking out insurance to cover such losses is partly to avoid the hassle of having to claim the loss from the retailer, but it doesn't mean you're unable to do so. It's the same as if your car's run into by a third party. You can sue them for the cost of repairs etc but if you have comprehensive cover you may, as a matter of convenience, simply choose to claim on your own policy, even though there's a cost to doing so.

Could the insurance company not pay out the claim and then go after the retailer or manufacturer for reimbursement of the cost? If then successful, the insurance company would not be out of pocket and therefore should not raise the premium.

I would have thought that motor insurance works the same way if the accident was 100% the fault of the other driver. Your insurance may pay out to you but then they go after the other driver's insurance.

I don't think insurance companies work that way.

John

redsturgeon wrote:

Lootman wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote: taking out insurance to cover such losses is partly to avoid the hassle of having to claim the loss from the retailer, but it doesn't mean you're unable to do so. It's the same as if your car's run into by a third party. You can sue them for the cost of repairs etc but if you have comprehensive cover you may, as a matter of convenience, simply choose to claim on your own policy, even though there's a cost to doing so.

Could the insurance company not pay out the claim and then go after the retailer or manufacturer for reimbursement of the cost? If then successful, the insurance company would not be out of pocket and therefore should not raise the premium.

I would have thought that motor insurance works the same way if the accident was 100% the fault of the other driver. Your insurance may pay out to you but then they go after the other driver's insurance.

I don't think insurance companies work that way.

John

They don't work that way. Investigating and apportioning blame would cost them money (as claimant or defendant), so they take the hit.
They know the average cost of a spoilt food claim, and they know the number of claims per year and the number of policyholders. The cost is probably minimal and in any case would be swamped by the increase in premiums from new and renewing customers who have to declare a claim. You could almost imagine it as a net revenue generator.

Lootman wrote:Could the insurance company not pay out the claim and then go after the retailer or manufacturer for reimbursement of the cost? If then successful, the insurance company would not be out of pocket and therefore should not raise the premium.

I would have thought that motor insurance works the same way if the accident was 100% the fault of the other driver. Your insurance may pay out to you but then they go after the other driver's insurance.

Yes, in theory they could - it's called a right of subrogation, and it's used regularly by insurers. But in practice it would be completely uneconomical for an insurer to pursue a claim for a couple of hundred quid, or whatever the average freezer contents are worth.

Incidentally, I'm currently advising a client who's in dispute with Admiral over their refusal to pay a claim for a stolen car, and in looking through their policy wording I noticed the following clause:

11. Drink and drugs clause
If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 3 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is driving your vehicle and:
- is found to be over the legal limit for alcohol or drugs
- is driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise
- fails to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason
No cover under the policy will be provided and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Law. In those circumstances, we will recover from you or the driver, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a Judgement, of any claim arising from the accident.

This is an example of an insurer allowing themselves to bring a subrogated claim, but it also contradicts what many people believe - that your insurance will still pay you out even if you're over the limit.

Whilst I'm aware that in some circumstances they will do so it's a stark warning, not just because of the loss of your own car but because you might end up getting sued for millions if you'd caused serious injuries to someone else.

Clitheroekid wrote:Whilst I'm aware that in some circumstances they will do so it's a stark warning, not just because of the loss of your own car but because you might end up getting sued for millions if you'd caused serious injuries to someone else.

whilst I certainly bow to CK's far superior knowledge, sure though

* the insurers (I) would pay out to 3rd parties (3P)
* so 3P wouldn't be suing
* I could then sue
* but if "for millions" they'd have zero chance of ever getting that much from the ordinary person, who could ever ever raise that level of money in a lifetime, let alone maybe also being permitted to retain something for basic needs. If "I" claim (say) 100K they may have some chance of repayment over time, but eg 5Million? Not a chance. It would take a 50K salary 100 years to pay that off if they had no other outgoings at all, and a 20K salary 250 years.
There just wouldn't be any point chasing that level surely?

As I say though CK has a far superior knowledge than I so maybe they would and do? I just donyt see how they could ever hope to be reimbursed in reality.



didds

didds wrote:* the insurers (I) would pay out to 3rd parties (3P)
* so 3P wouldn't be suing
* I could then sue
* but if "for millions" they'd have zero chance of ever getting that much from the ordinary person, who could ever ever raise that level of money in a lifetime, let alone maybe also being permitted to retain something for basic needs. If "I" claim (say) 100K they may have some chance of repayment over time, but eg 5Million? Not a chance. It would take a 50K salary 100 years to pay that off if they had no other outgoings at all, and a 20K salary 250 years.
There just wouldn't be any point chasing that level surely?

Insurers are like any other commercial organisation, and they won't throw good money after bad.

And, of course, only a tiny percentage of claims result in payouts of millions.

However, if an insurer has paid out £1m and you're a middle class drunk driver living in a leafy suburb of London with over £1m worth of assets then they'll happily relieve you of it.

Even if they've only paid out £100k, which is an everyday award, that could ruin many people. And the worst thing about it is that even declaring yourself bankrupt won't clear the debt - it hangs over you for the rest of your life, so that, for example, if you were to inherit some property or win the Lottery that could be taken as well.

In fact it's an interesting question (to which I don't know the answer) as to whether the debt would even survive your death, and be payable out of your estate.

All things considered, if you cause a serious accident whilst over the limit you're probably best packing your bags and fleeing the country!

get all that.

I was responding specially to the point made

"but because you might end up getting sued for millions if you'd caused serious injuries to someone else."