A dispute over a lost ruby from a long-worn wedding ring has drawn attention to how New Zealand contents policies treat jewellery, wear and tear, and disclosure, based on guidance from the Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman (IFSO) scheme and Consumer NZ.
According to RNZ’s report, the case involved a woman who had worn her wedding ring every day for 42 years before discovering that the ruby had fallen out and was missing. She submitted a claim under her contents insurance. The insurer obtained a report from a jeweller, which found that the ring’s claws had worn down over time and that this gradual deterioration led to the stone becoming dislodged. The insurer declined the claim, relying on the policy exclusion for loss or damage caused by wear and tear rather than by a sudden event.
The customer complained to the IFSO scheme. After reviewing the policy wording, the jeweller’s report and the circumstances of the loss, the scheme agreed with the insurer’s decision to decline the claim. A Consumer NZ spokesperson said the outcome showed that policies can differ in how they treat similar types of property and losses. “What was standard in one insurance policy could be a benefit in another, or might not be covered at all. This includes credit cards, jewellery, keys and locks, professional tools and equipment kept at home, and items damaged during cleaning. On the other hand, your policy may include cover for things you may not know about. That’s why it always pays to check the cover by speaking to your insurer to understand exactly what you’re paying for,” the spokesperson said, as reported by RNZ.
According to IFSO guidance, jewellery is usually insured under a contents policy when it is lost, stolen, or damaged due to a sudden and unexpected event, such as theft or accidental loss. Whether a particular claim is accepted depends on the specific terms, limits, and exclusions in the policy documents.
Many New Zealand contents policies apply monetary limits to jewellery, particularly where items are not individually listed. For unspecified jewellery, aggregate limits of about $2,500 are common. Where the total value of jewellery exceeds that level, insurers generally require customers to specify individual items, agree insured values and pay an additional premium. From an insurer’s perspective, high-value jewellery increases exposure, especially to theft and unexplained loss. If a customer owns valuable items but does not disclose and specify them, any claim may be settled at the standard jewellery limit because the premium was based on that lower level of risk.
The IFSO scheme advises that policyholders who own high-value jewellery discuss specification with their insurer at policy inception, during the policy term if circumstances change, or at renewal. Insurers often request recent professional valuations for specified items and may ask for periodic updates. Jewellery must be specified before any loss, theft, or damage occurs. Attempts to add or increase cover after an event are treated as misrepresentation or fraud and can result in a declined claim and other consequences under the policy.
When a claim is lodged, insurers usually require evidence that the customer owned the jewellery. This may include receipts, bank or credit card statements, valuation certificates, and photographs or video footage. Photographs can help show that the items existed and what they looked like, but may not be enough on their own, and insurers can request further documentation. If a customer cannot provide proof of ownership, they are expected to explain the reasons. The insurer then decides whether the available information is sufficient, or whether the absence of proof affects or prevents settlement under the policy conditions.
Jewellery cover is also affected by whether the contents policy provides replacement (new-for-old) or indemnity (market value) settlement. Under replacement cover, the insurer will repair the jewellery to as close to its previous state as practical or supply a new item of equivalent type and quality. Under indemnity cover, the claim is settled based on the second-hand value of the item, or a replacement cost less an allowance for age and use (depreciation). The IFSO scheme encourages policyholders to confirm which settlement basis applies, as this can change the expected outcome for jewellery claims.
The ruby ring case reflects one of the more frequent grounds for declined jewellery claims: wear and tear. Contents policies are generally aimed at sudden, accidental events rather than gradual changes over time, such as claws loosening or bands thinning through decades of use. Other common reasons for declined claims include findings that the policyholder did not take reasonable care of valuables. Some policy wordings include conditions about storage and security, such as keeping jewellery in a safe when it is not being worn. Losses involving rings left in public or unsecured locations can lead to disputes about whether those conditions were met.
Theft by people lawfully on the premises is another recurring issue. Many contents policies exclude theft or damage caused by guests, boarders, or tradespeople. In situations such as open homes, where a visitor steals jewellery from a bedroom or jewellery box, cover may not apply if the policy excludes theft by people who were invited into the property.
For insurers, brokers, and advisers, the case and related guidance point to the role of clear explanations at sale and renewal about jewellery sub-limits, specification requirements, settlement bases, and exclusions for gradual damage and wear and tear. Information from Consumer NZ and the IFSO scheme indicates that regular professional valuations, supporting documentation, and up-to-date photographs can assist underwriting decisions and claims handling for jewellery. If a claim is declined, policyholders can request an internal review through the insurer’s complaints process. If they remain dissatisfied, they can ask the IFSO scheme to investigate the complaint at no charge, providing an external dispute resolution option for jewellery and other contents-related disputes.
