There has been a meteoric rise in luxury watch thefts across the world over the last few years; even celebrities like Ferrari F1 drivers Charles Leclerc and Carlos Sainz Jr. have faced the wrath of this growing menace. However, this has also become a major concern for insurance companies, which are dealing with the rising number of watch burglaries and also the difficult market conditions that have shackled the watch industry over the recent years. Case in point, a Rolex owner in the Netherlands dragged an insurance company over to an arbitration court over the extra €10,700 (about $11,500) that had to be paid for a quick replacement of the watch.
According to a report by Telegraaf, the owner of a Rolex Sky-Dweller had his watch stolen in April 2022. Luckily, the owner had the watch covered under the Valuables Outside the Home Insurance provided by the Dutch company Achmea. Within four months, the insurance company paid the owner €14,300 (~$15,500) for the replacement of the Rolex, which was the selling price of a brand new Sky-Dweller from a Rolex dealership back then. However, as you might be aware many of Rolex’s popular models have long waiting, which includes the Sky-Dweller. Per the news report, the owner would have had to wait three years to get his hands on a replacement for his Sky-Dweller if he only paid the selling price of the watch.
Not ready to wait for that long, the person went ahead and bought a Sky-Dweller from a jeweler, paying a mark-up of more than $11,000. The Rolex owner then asked Achmea to foot the bill for the extra amount, which was turned down by the insurance company, stating that it had already paid the list value of the timepiece. Unhappy with the refusal, the man lodged a complaint with Kifid, a Dutch institute for financial disputes. The contention was whether the man was entitled to an immediate replacement of his watch according to the insurance terms and conditions. The insurance document stated that the owner would receive an amount “to buy the same items now.” The consumer argued that “buy now” in the conditions should be treated as delivery within a reasonable time and “possession.” Kifid agreed to the argument put forward by the consumer and directed the insurance company to pay the extra $11,500. What a win for the owner! However, this incident might force the insurance companies to tweak their terms and conditions.
