Mystery of the missing jewel
When Sylvia’s £4k engagement ring lost its diamond, her insurers refused to pay out . . . so she turned detective to try to prove them wrong
SYLViA JARRETT recalls feeling her engagement ring snag while she was in a carpet shop. She looked down and everything seemed fine. But, on the drive home, she was horrified to discover the diamond centre stone was missing. Sylvia and her husband William, both 74, rushed back to the shop to search for the missing gem — but it was gone.
The Jarretts were devastated at losing the stone last April, but consoled themselves with the fact that the ring was at least covered on their home insurance policy with the Co-op.
Yet, when they tried to make a claim, the Co-op refused to pay out, as its experts believed the diamond had been ‘intentionally removed’ from the setting.
Sylvia, a retired lecturer from Alcester, Warwickshire, says she was speechless. William, a retired general manager, had given her the ring after proposing ten years ago during a Mediterranean cruise.
The Co- op requested that Sylvia send the ring, valued at £4,000 seven years ago, to a firm called Signet, which it uses to investigate highvalue claims. Signet then showed the ring to a Hatton Garden gemmologist, which produced a ten-page report. it stated: ‘The three claws, which have been eased back, have been moved out of alignment intentionally. it is not accidental damage.
‘A setter’s tool appears to have been used to ease back the claws, or pliers suitable for removing gemstones.
‘in my opinion, the evidence shows that the stone has been intentionally removed.’
BUT
Sylvia, who’s been a Co- op customer for 20 years, says: ‘i have no idea what a setter’s tool is, let alone how to use one.’ She thinks the Co- op was suspicious as this was her third claim for jewellery in 12 months.
One was for a pair of earrings worth £450, which went missing when they moved house. The second was for her husband’s wedding ring, worth £460, which slipped off and was lost after he’d shed a great deal of weight.
Desperate to prove the claims were just the result of bad luck, Sylvia asked her local jeweller for its opinion. its report stated: ‘Three of the claws have moved from their original position, ition, which could be indicative ve of having caught on something, hing, which would result in their heir being pulled out of shape.
‘Further in- depth examination mhe shows marks to the bottom of the claws, which is expected normal wear and tear with a ring worn n every day for ten years.’
Sylvia took her case to o the Financial Ombudsman n Service, however it sided ed with the Co-op.
it said with contradictory ory reports, it must decide which hich was more reliable. As the Co-op had presented a more detailed tailed report, ‘based on the balance nce of probabilities’ it ruled the insurer nsurer had not acted unfairly.
Close to giving up, Sylvia then had a flash of inspiration. When her husband bought the ring in Gibraltar, it had been resized with the same jeweller.
‘i wondered if they could shed some light on why there were marks from a setter’s tool on the claws,’ she says.
After tracking down the jeweller, she was delighted to find they still had a record of her ring. in an email, they said: ‘Our jewellers remove the centre stone of engagement rings prior to sizing them in order to prevent any damage. The ring shank is put through a variety of different manipulations (heated, soldered, plated, etc) to reach the right size. While our jewellers are masters at what they do, they may leave evidence of their work on the claws of the ring.’
With this new evidence, Sylvia was sure the Co- op would see that she wasn’t lying. But the insurer refused to change its mind — and she had missed the 30- day deadline for appealing the Ombudsman’s decision.
Consumer expert James Daley, of Fairer Finance, says it isn’t righ right that the Co-op has taken a st stance of guilty until proven inno innocent. ‘There is no way of cate categorically proving the stone wa was removed deliberately to m make a fraudulent claim,’ he sa says. ‘rings are cleaned and claws cl opened up all the time.’
Martyn James, from the complaints website resolver, says it is yet another example of o insurers looking for reasons not n to pay out for claims of loss lo or theft. He adds: ‘This is a ar real David and Goliath fight. insu insurers can afford to pay professionals fess for detailed reports. Customers Cus don’t have this type of m money or access to experts.’
Since Sin April, customers have made mad some 800 complaints to the Financial Fina Ombudsman regarding home contents insurance. Around one in four were upheld in favour of the policyholder.
A Co-op insurance spokesman says: ‘We only ever refuse claims when there is clear evidence to suggest the basis of the claim is not valid. This helps to ensure that all our customers pay a fair amount for their insurance.’ A Financial Ombudsman spokesman says: ‘if consumers feel they’ve been treated unfairly by their insurance company, they should get in touch with us — our service is free and easy to use.’