Worth Ave Group & snatched iPhone

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by bbbc, Dec 29, 2012.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    #1
    Any one able to give me some insight whether or not Worth Ave Group will cover a snatched iPhone? We were riding the metro overseas when a thief grabbed the iPhone and ran out of the train right before the doors closed. We'll cover our butts and file a police report.
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    LapsangSouchong

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Location:
    the burrows
  3. macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #3
    I love how on their comparison, it says "Unlimited Claims" per 2 year policy period, yet when you actually read the policy, it states "Under certain circumstances, we may cancel a policy. This happens on rare occasions but an example of such is if you were to file multiple claims during one policy period"

    To me, Worth Ave group is a scam. Even Apple Care gives you 2 for almost half the price.
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    LapsangSouchong

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Location:
    the burrows
    #4
    To me it's kinda apples and oranges.
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #5
    I dunno, I don't like a company who says "Unlimited Claims" on the advertisement, and then in the contract says "May be cancelled after 1 claim" ... to me there's got to be protection (so someone isn't using their phone as a frisbee), but to threaten cancellation after 1 claim is absurd when you're trying to compare yourself to AppleCare, who is up front in saying 2 claim limit, and Square which is a 4 claim limit.

    They won't get my business with that language.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    LapsangSouchong

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Location:
    the burrows
    #6
    I have applecare+. I just think comparing warranties to insurance to applecare+ which is a hybrid doesn't really work. I'm not vouching for that company. He asked if they covered theft. I googled it. Beyond that, I didn't spend much time thinking about it.
     
  7. macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #7
    I know. I just became interested when I saw their comparison, hehe. As quickly as it sparked my interest, it lost it, but I'm glad I got AC+ :)
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    #8
    Well, it's to protect themselves from bad clients. A good client is your average person, someone who buys an insurance and never uses it. Then there are those who use insurances twice a week just because they can.

    Limitations like that are there to protect the company, not to trick you out of money.

    I'm not saying it's the case with this specific company, but if you're looking for an insurance without that kind of wording in the small print - I doubt you'll ever find one...
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #9
    yeah I suppose, I just find it a bit shady they advertise their differentiator as something they actually prohibit.
     
  10. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    #10
    It's like when carriers say "unlimited texts" and then in the fine print it says something like "based on normal usage" or "up to 1 000 texts per day". It's unlimited in the sense that no normal person would ever be limited, not in the word's full meaning.

    For instance, unlimited calls is per definition impossible since the it's measured in time and the time between two invoices is limited. But no one would ever say "they don't offer unlimited calls" due to that. See what I mean? ;)
     
  11. macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #11
    No, a more appropriate comparison would be if they advertised "Unlimited Minutes" and then the fine print said "Limit: 50 Minutes" ... the point is that they're using the fact that they provide "Unlimited Claims" as a differentiator to the other, who all provide 2-4 claims at half the price, so to say "Unlimited" and limit to 1 is not comparable to "unlimited calling" and capping it at 9999 minutes like most of those unlimited carriers do.
     
  12. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    #12
    You're not getting it though. They're not saying they limit it to one claim, they say that under certain circumstances multiple claims during the policy period may be ground for cancellation.

    They might cancel it after the second time you "drop it from a bridge", or if you get "robbed" five days a week, and two times a day on weekends.

    AppleCare+ only covers damages that you can prove (trade in the old, busted up one for a new, they're gonna be able to make some money out of the parts that can be salvaged), and won't cover phones that you dropped from the boat that you weren't able to get back, so they can afford having a lower price and offer two exchanges at 50 bucks a pop with no questions asked.

    An insurance that covers phones that's gone missing is a completely different game, with obvious and inherent higher costs which means that someone that purchases their insurance and never shows anything other than proof of purchase will be scrutinised and might have their policy cancelled.

    As I said, if you're looking for an insurance company that doesn't cover its back in this manner - you'll most likely have to look for a very long time. If not, please let me know the name of it ;)
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #13
    Yeah, like you said they may cancel if you ... "get robbed five days in a week" which would be after 5, which to me would be excessive, or after... "the second time dropping from a bridge" which I'd say excessive. The point was if they said "excessive claims" or "may be dropped after multiple claims" it's different.

    And you do realize that all of the other companies are directly or indirectly insurance companies as well, don't you? The bottom line is to say "UNLIMITED" then have the absolute minimum possibly claims "1" as the potential limit is shady. Not saying insurance companies aren't shady often, I'm just not putting MY money into someone doing business that way.
     
  14. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    #14
    It's not though, it's just different wording. My home insurance for instance (which is called a fire insurance by the way, despite it covering most things) states it only covers theft if it's committed in the home where I reside... I called my insurance company and asked them what the heck was going on, and was told that in "insurance lingo", if I have my phone (a part of my home) in my pocket, it's in transit from my house, to my house, and considered being in the house, so I'd be reimbursed if I was robbed. Very strange, I reckon they could just say you're insured against theft, full stop :)

    Yes, which one of them doesn't cover its back in a similar manner? Apple does it by not covering theft and demanding that you hand in the broken phone in order to get a new one, Worth Ave does it by stating multiple claims might entail the cancellation of the insurance.

    Can you name an insurance company that covers theft or completely lost phones that doesn't have small print stating direct or indirect that they might cancel or refuse the insurance the way Worth Ave is doing? Then I'll name a company that's being taken for everything they have by scammers ;)
     
  15. macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #15
    You're missing the whole point here... first, your home insurance is likely "____ Fire And Casualty" hence the casualty (loss event) part. Of course it covers your items when they're in transit, and the reason they use that terminology is because when you transfer the chain of custody to someone else (ie put it in self storage, or put it in another home, say a weekend cabin, or at work), it's expected that those locations would then also have insurance that would accept responsibility for things happening on their property.

    The bottom line is the advertising here. They're trying to say "Look, here's why we're better, we have unlimited claims" and them, the absolutely no-name company, goes and puts in their FAQ's (not even buried in their terms) that they may cancel you after 1 claim.

    Why would ANYONE in their right mind go into a contract that gives them such leeway to get screwed? So you go buy a gift card for Starbucks for $100, and then you go to use it, buy a drink, then go back the second day, and they say sorry, the sign says "we may limit you to one drink for the price you paid for the card" ... well technically they're in the right contractually, but from a sales and marketing standpoint that'd be unethical, and likely illegal.

    And my guess is the "Worth Ave Group" is not an actual registered insurance company, but rather just an extended warranty company, which is how they can get away with that.
     
  16. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    #16
    Nope, it's just "fire insurance". It's not in English though, my guess it's just what home insurances are called here...

    How do you come to that conclusion? There are insurances that doesn't cover theft, only things stolen from your house during a break in, unless you add an option to it. So I don't agree with you that it's that obvious...

    I know I'm repeating myself, but could you name me a company that doesn't? Reserving the right to cancelling policies when suspecting foul play or assuming a client is going to cost more than the expected risk is standard practice, nothing shocking...

    Apple doesn't have to in their AppleCare+ program, since they're protecting their own interest by not covering lost phones and not doing anything unless they get the damaged phone.

    No, insurances and gift cards are not comparable in that sense.

    With what, cancelling policies if they suspect foul play?
     
  17. macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #17
    You are utterly off base. Let me preface this comment with the fact that I hold a Property and Casualty Insurance license in my state.

    You're absolutely right that companies need to protect themselves. Protecting an iPhone is different than a house. No insurance company would advertise "If your house burns down we offer unlimited replacement rebuilds" .. because that's not the nature of that type of insurance. We're talking about a policy where it's commonplace in the industry to offer 2-4 claims per 2 year period as the "norm" and they chose to say they're better because they offer "unlimited" to sway purchasing decisions to them. They they post a FAQ and even on the FAQ, they threaten policy cancellation after 1 claim. At least for half the price, AppleCare+ gives the customer 2.

    As I said, it's not the program I take issue with, it's the way they advertise it.
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    #18
    No matter the difference in price, AppleCare+ will give you nothing what so ever if the phone is missing (due to theft, dropped it from a bridge when snapping a cute selfie, got eaten by a bear...). One guaranteed claim is still better than zero ;)

    You seem to make the point that Worth Ave would cancel the policy after a single claim that AppleCare+ would cover. How come? Have you asked them, or are you just assuming? Have you asked them under which circumstances the would in fact offer unlimited claims, or if their "unlimited" is in fact a specific number?
     
  19. macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #19
    Well it does say in the first FAQ that they may cancel the policy after one claim. So anything that someone would tell me via email or phone would not supersede the contract which says they may cancel the policy after 1 claim.
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    #20
    If there is no specification other than something like "one claim per policy period might be considered reason enough to cancel the policy" in the contract and a representative for the company tells you "if we're talking busted up screens, there is a limit of three per policy period" or "the one claim limit doesn't apply when you have the broken phone in your possession" - you've got the right to at least three claims of busted up screens (if you can prove it, by either having recorded the call or saved the e-mail).

    So my question still stands.
     
  21. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Lincoln, England
    #21
    I think that as long as they fulfil a claim and THEN cancel the policy, there's no problem. What they absolutely should not do is fulfil a claim, allow the policy to continue to run and then refuse the next claim and cancel the policy on the basis that you've had too many.

    If they do the former you can just go elsewhere for insurance.
     
  22. cwheatley, Jan 10, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013

    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Location:
    stillwater, ok
    #22
    I (may) work in a facility affiliated with WAG. PM me for any info.
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #23
    Pardon me if I laugh out loud at that. Sorry for you. I wouldn't brag about that.
     
  24. macrumors 68030

    HazyCloud

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    #24
    It doesn't appear to be bragging to me. It looks like they are trying to help if someone has questions. :confused:
     
  25. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Location:
    stillwater, ok
    #25
    No bragging, just an offer of assistance. :confused: If you have any questions or issues yourself, I would be more than willing to hear you out. Again, PM please.
     

Share This Page