After damage, the payment turns out lower than the amount needed to replace your possessions. The insurer refers to current value, while you thought you were insured for new replacement value. A high retail price or repair quotation alone does not resolve the difference. First establish which valuation arrangement applies to your claim and how the insurer calculated it. An insurance lawyer can help distinguish a policy dispute from a valuation disagreement and substantiate a focused objection.
Sources (3)
On this page
1. Start with your policy’s valuation provision
Find the policy schedule and terms applicable on the loss date. Record which section covers the damaged object and which arrangement applies. Contents insurance may use a different valuation procedure from travel or motor insurance. The package name provides insufficient information to establish whether current value, new replacement value or another value applies.
Watch for special provisions for electronics, valuables or items no longer in use, for example. Ask the insurer to identify the articles applied and provide a calculation for each object. This reveals whether the dispute concerns the correct policy article or figures within an otherwise applicable arrangement. Different documents are needed for each question.
2. Understand which value is meant
In many policies, new replacement value is linked to the amount needed to buy comparable items new now. Current value concerns the value immediately before the damage, which may account for age, use and other depreciation. Specific definitions can differ. The original purchase price years ago is therefore not always the basis for current compensation.
An advertised second-hand price also does not automatically prove the insured current value. Check which concept your policy uses and whether a depreciation schedule applies. Also record brand, model, year of manufacture and actual condition. This lets you explain why a calculation may not fit your object without mixing different types of value.
3. Check transition rules and exceptions
Some policies reimburse new replacement value subject to conditions while current value exceeds a particular percentage. Others use an age limit or always apply current value to certain categories. A percentage in another insurer’s example must therefore not be presented as a general statutory threshold. Use the exact criterion in your own terms in your objection.
Centraal Beheer and Klaverblad, for example, show arrangements around forty per cent in their own product explanations, with their own exceptions and further conditions. The travel insurance terms in Kifid 2025-0498 instead specified a one-year limit for the baggage arrangement mentioned. These examples show why your own policy is decisive; they do not prove which arrangement applies to your case.
4. Request the depreciation calculation step by step
Ask for the schedule and version used, chosen product category, starting amount and age applied. Request an explanation of whether depreciation is monthly or annual and any residual value used. Check that the insurer assessed the same object you reported. An incorrect category or purchase date may strongly affect the result.
Make a simple checking table showing the insurer’s amounts and your own substantiated corrections. Separate a factual error from an objection to the chosen method. An arithmetic error calls for a different response from whether a general table adequately accounts for your object’s particular condition. Request specific reasons concerning an exception.
5. Substantiate ownership, age and condition separately
Keep purchase invoices, warranty documents, serial numbers, photographs and maintenance records. A bank statement may help, but must be linkable to the claimed object. If the receipt is missing, seek additional documents such as an order confirmation or a copy from the supplier. Honestly explain which details you know and which you can only approximate.
A valuation dispute may stall because ownership or age is insufficiently substantiated first. Kifid 2025-0498 specifically involved such evidential problems concerning stolen baggage. Therefore do not focus all your attention on the depreciation percentage. Also demonstrate that the object was actually present, belonged to you and had the characteristics on which you base the compensation sought.
6. Compare replacement and repair carefully
A quotation shows what repair may cost, but does not independently determine the amount due under insurance. Terms may compare repair costs with current or new replacement value and impose requirements on loss assessment. Therefore ask which comparison the insurer makes and whether it substantively disputes the quotation or merely limits it by a valuation threshold.
For replacement, find a comparable product with the same relevant functions and quality. State if the old model is unavailable and why your alternative is appropriate. A more expensive model with extra functions does not automatically prove a higher insured value. Keep dated quotations and specifications so an expert or lawyer can follow the comparison.
7. Distinguish the loss amount from the final payment
Even if the assessed value is correct, the payment may be lower because of a deductible, category maximum or another policy restriction. Therefore request a settlement statement showing the valuation and each separate deduction. Check whether a maximum applies per object, per event or jointly to several insured people before adding amounts together.
In your objection, record precisely which difference you claim and how you calculate it. A general request for 'new replacement value' may remain too vague if the insurer applies several adjustments. For a substantial amount, have it assessed whether expert valuation or primarily interpretation of the policy is needed. A second expert assessment is not an automatic solution to a purely legal disagreement.
8. Prepare a focused objection and lawyer meeting
First send an organised response identifying the policy article, disputed calculation and evidence supporting your correction. Request reasoned reassessment of each point. Keep the response and note whether the insurer offers a partial amount as an advance or full settlement. Have a full and final discharge declaration assessed before agreeing.
Bring the policy schedule, depreciation schedule, settlement statement and inventory with evidence to your lawyer. Request an assessment of the financial interest after deductibles and maxima, expertise needed and costs of further steps. This enables a focused choice between further substantiation, a complaint, expert consultation or proceedings without assuming an outcome.
Frequently asked questions
Will I always receive the original purchase price?
No. The policy may use current new replacement value, current value or another arrangement. Check the definition, conditions and valuation date in your own insurance.
Is a depreciation schedule always decisive?
Investigate what significance the policy gives the schedule and whether the correct category and version were used. Substantiate special circumstances and ask why they were or were not considered.
Does my repair quotation prove the payment is too low?
A quotation substantiates repair costs. Whether those costs are fully reimbursed also depends on the policy, value limit and loss assessment. Request a separate explanation of the calculation.
Sources
These sources relate to this page. For a specific case, check current rules and your own documents.
- Kifid — niet-bindend advies 2025-0498, volledige uitspraak en bijlage Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Centraal Beheer — eigen uitleg nieuwwaarderegeling woonverzekering Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Klaverblad — eigen uitleg vaststellen nieuwwaarde en dagwaarde Accessed: 2026-10-23
Legal review
Not legally reviewed yetThis version has not been reviewed by a lawyer or legal professional. Checking sources or editing text is not legal approval.
Editorial team Insurance law in the Netherlands
We connect explanations to sources and record targeted changes. Legal review is attributed only to the actual reviewed version, with a real reviewer, date and scope. Human legal review of these articles remains open.
Ricardo van der Spoel
Editorial responsibility · Editorial organisation and technology