iPhone 6 owner loses 'top of the range' phone dispute
iPhone 6 owner loses ‘top of the range’ phone dispute
26 July 2022
A man who sought to have his insurer replace his wrecked iPhone 6 with a “top of the range” phone has lost his claims dispute.
The complainant lodged a claim under his home and contents cover after accidentally dropping his phone in water, causing it to be irreparably damaged.
Blue Zebra agreed to cover the claim and offered to replace his iPhone6 with an iPhone XR, a phone it considered to be of similar value at $949, and pay for claimed accessories.
The claimant believed the insurer’s offer to be unreasonable, saying at the time of purchase the iPhone 6 was the “latest, newest and most powerful” model on the market and sought $1779.98 for a replacement phone and accessories.
He accepted that his damaged phone was no longer the best model on the market and had since purchased an iPhone 12. He said he should still be paid for an appropriate replacement.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) said Blue Zebra’s offer complied with the policy terms that offered a “nearest equivalent new item” for damaged contents that could not be repaired, and that the iPhone XR had been a slight upgrade on the iPhone 6.
The complainant argued that the iPhone XR was not the latest phone model and therefore was not an equivalent item replacement, saying the phone would be “obsolete very soon”.
AFCA said it would not be fair for the insurer to upgrade the claimant from an outdated and no longer manufactured iPhone 6 to a brand new unit.
The panel noted that the owner had already purchased a replacement phone and ruled that Blue Zebra would only have to pay for the iPhone XR, accessories, and initial attempted repair costs. The insurer was also required to pay interest from August 31 last year until the settlement date.
AFCA acknowledged that the claims experience had been stressful for the complainant but decided against awarding him any non-financial loss compensation, saying the insurer’s handling of the claim and settlement offer had been fair.
Click here for the full ruling.
