'Borderline smug' insurance rep kept rejecting a claim — until the customer found a brilliant loophole

While most people successfully get their insurance claims filed, some unknowingly fall victim to loopholes within the insurer’s policy. Rarely do we see a customer bending these rules and making the insurance company pay due to their complicated regulations. One individual decided to take on their phone’s coverage provider in the quirkiest possible way. After a disagreement with one of the company’s representatives, the insurance holder—who goes by u/No_Exchange2440 on Reddit—taught the representative a lesson she would likely remember for life.

In the post, the person shared that they had insured their phone through a premium bank account. As part of the benefits, the deal covered both repairs and replacements once the fixed excess was paid. “The excess was the same whether it was a cracked screen or a full replacement, so it seemed like a solid arrangement,” the insurance holder wrote, providing details of the agreement that began in the mid-2010s. “One day, I cracked my phone screen. It still worked fine, and I had a holiday coming up,” the customer recalled, explaining why they decided to wait until after the vacation to file a claim.

After spending some quality time, the customer decided to file a claim upon returning home. They called the insurance company to claim benefits for the damages covered by the policy. “When I finally called the insurance company, the representative asked when the damage had happened, so I told her honestly,” the insurance holder explained, which led to a troublesome situation. The female executive on the other end of the line explained that the customer had waited too long to report the damage. “There was a time limit for claims—around 10 days—and I’d missed it,” the customer was told.

However, the insurance claimant did their best to explain the situation, justifying that the phone was still usable when it got damaged. They said, “I’d needed it for my trip, but she wouldn’t budge. Rules were rules, she said, and my claim was invalid. Her tone was borderline smug.” The customer then decided to test the waters with what they called a “pre-emptive MC (malicious compliance).” “What should I do if the phone gets damaged further?” they asked the disinterested representative. “You’d need to call us back and file a new claim. But make sure it’s within the time frame,” the representative responded.

The customer agreed that they understood and asked a follow-up question: “And I can’t include the existing screen damage, right?” “Correct. The new claim would have to be for unrelated damage,” the insurer confirmed. According to the insurance holder, the representative seemed oblivious to where the conversation was headed. At this point, the customer had carefully considered their remaining options and presented a bizarre suggestion. “So how likely is it that a cracked screen could lead to water damage? If water got in and fried the motherboard, you’d most likely have to replace the whole phone, right?”

Their inquiry was followed by a long pause, forcing the representative to speak to her supervisor. “When she came back, her tone had changed,” the customer claimed and added, “Suddenly, they were willing to overlook the missed time frame and process my original claim for the cracked screen.” The post garnered widespread reactions. u/DasJuden63 asked, “Why would a company have a concurrent causation clause in the first place? Or is that to protect the company from having to replace the screen for a minor crack?” “For me, the malicious compliance would be thanking her for the info and then submitting a water damage claim the next day. Voila, new phone,” u/theartofwastingtime suggested.