Today, I’d like to share an interesting verdict from the Dutch Institute for Financial Disputes (Kifid) in a case between an insurance company (Achmea Schadeverzekeringen N.V.) and a consumer.

The consumer had an insurance policy with an additional clause for valuable goods. Importantly, this additional insurance also covered the loss/theft of valuable goods outside the house.

A stolen Fake Rolex Sky-Dweller
The client of Achmea Schadeverzekeringen lost his precious aaa quality replica Rolex Sky-Dweller due to theft on the night of April 26th/27th, 2022. On the 27th, the watch owner filed a report with the police. At the end of that month, he also reported the theft to his insurance company. Achmea Schadeverzekeringen investigated the insured client’s claim on August 22nd, 2022. One month later, the company approved his claim and reimbursed him the retail price of the cheap fake Rolex Sky-Dweller UK (€14,300 at the time), minus the client’s €100 deductible.

Paying the market price
Now, here is where it gets interesting. After all, as we know, one does not simply walk into a Swiss made replica Rolex AD and purchase a Sky-Dweller from stock. On October 4th, 2022, the theft victim went to an authorized (!) dealer and asked for the same Rolex Sky-Dweller he had previously owned for its retail price of €14,300. In this case, the authorized dealer told him that the waiting time for a top super clone Rolex Sky-Dweller was, at a minimum, three years. However (mind the “crook alert”), the authorized Rolex dealer offered him the high end fake Rolex Sky-Dweller for €25,000 so he could take it home immediately. The theft victim took the offer and went home with his new watch.

The authorized high quality replica Rolex UK dealer’s scamming behavior is not today’s topic, by the way.
An additional claim
The insurance company’s client then claimed another €10,700 to make up for the total of €25,000. After a short investigation by Achmea Schadeverzekeringen’s jewelry expert, the company rejected the claim as the expert believed that the client could indeed buy the watch for its €14,300 retail price. Based on this rejection, the client filed a complaint with the Dutch Institute for Financial Disputes (Kifid). The terms and conditions of his agreement with the insurance company read that the client would be reimbursed with an amount enabling him to buy an exact replacement immediately.
The insurance company again claimed that the consumer could buy the watch for €14,300 through an official Swiss movement super clone Rolex UK dealer but had to consider the waiting time. However, the consumer had decided not to wait for the communicated three-year minimum and spent €10,700 more than he was reimbursed. The insurance company believed that it was not financially liable for his unwillingness to wait and the difference between the market and retail prices.