To think they could just pay for the sink?

[kitchenemergency]

To cut a v long story short following a (fairly ineptly handled) insurance claim I am getting a new kitchen. So the whole room has been plastered and redecorated, all new cupboards, worktop, splashbacks etc. My appliances are the existing ones but that's fine as all are in good working order.

The contractors advised my insurers that although there was no damage to my sink or taps, by the time they are disconnected and reconnected and all the sealant properly stripped and redone it would be quicker and cheaper to give me a new sink.

My insurers have refused.

So despite spending £££s on the new kitchen, plus the cost of storing all the contents for over 6 months AND the very expensive temporary alternative they have given me, they're arguing over £200 odd for a new sink and tap!

AIBU to think this is crazy and they really should just cough for the cost?

The objective is to dissuade people from having "little accidents" like the previous poster mentioned.

If all you were going to get out of it was months of disruption and your old sink back - what would be the point of cheating. If you have a small flood but get shiny new sink, new worktops and a whole new colour scheme - it might just be worth it. That's why, in the bigger picture, it is not cheaper for the insurer to simply replace the sink.

I shouldn't be, but still am, shocked by the level of dishomesty surrounding insurance.

To be clear - because you have to be on MN - I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty - I am merely making a general point.

I shouldn't be, but still am, shocked by the level of dishomesty surrounding insurance.

Don't worry. We all pay for it It's not the insurers that lose.

Classic case of the "computer says no", no one at the insurers is thinking logically!

Mind you be done of the responses on here, if it was sent via email then they may not have read it correctly!