King Price Insurance — Two Unfair Claim Rejections & Misleading Policy Practices

For the first time in my 21years of being insured, I had to process 2x content claims. This is my experience:

I am writing this public complaint regarding two separate home contents and appliance insurance claims that King Price has rejected or failed to honor, citing inconsistent, unsubstantiated, and in one case factually incorrect reasoning.

Claim 1 — Desktop Screen Rejected on Incorrect Grounds: King Price rejected my claim for a desktop screen on the basis that it is not a specified item on my policy. This decision is factually flawed. King Price's own website clearly distinguishes between household contents and portable possessions, describing household contents as "everything that would fall out if you were to turn your home upside down." Their website explicitly lists items that require separate specification as portable possessions — bicycles, hearing aids, cellphones, drones, prescription glasses, and laptops or tablets taken outside the home. A desktop screen does not appear on this list, nor can it be classified as a portable possession by any reasonable definition. It is a fixed, non-portable item that permanently resides in the home. I was never advised that it would need to be separately specified, because under their own policy definition, it does not. This rejection contradicts King Price's own published policy terms.

Claim 2 — Infestation Excuse Without Evidence: A second claim was rejected on the grounds of an alleged pest infestation. By definition, an infestation requires the presence of an unusually large number of pests causing widespread, visible damage — something that would be clearly evident on PC boards and internal components. I formally requested photographic proof of this alleged infestation and received none. A single pest in the vicinity does not constitute an infestation, and this excuse appears to have been used as a convenient way to avoid paying out a valid claim.

The Broader Issue: King Price markets itself on affordable premiums and reliable cover, yet when customers need them most, they default to technicalities and unverified excuses to avoid fulfilling their obligations. Premiums are raised based on prior payout discussions, yet those commitments disappear the moment a claim is submitted. This appears to be a deliberate pattern of conduct designed to benefit the insurer at the customer's expense.

What I Am Requesting: I am calling for a formal investigation into King Price's claims handling practices by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) and the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance (OSTI), to determine whether these rejections are consistent with the fair treatment of customers and compliance with the Insurance Act.

I urge other affected King Price customers to come forward and share their experiences publicly.