My Toddler Broke LED Screen While at Harvey Norman, Who Says They Don't Have Accidental Cover?

drdarsh on 02/01/2019 - 19:15
Last edited 02/01/2019 - 22:03 by 2 other users

My son and wife were at Harvey Norman, looking out for refrigerator when my toddler threw his water bottle on a TV which smashed the screen.

Unfortunately, I was at home finishing my overdue masters project. Little fellow has been taught lesson and we will continue to be more vigilant. Officials at store have mentioned they do not have accidental cover, we have never faced this issue before and presume that stores like Harvey Norman will have accidental cover to cover similar to other emergencies? Have been asked to pay $1000.00.

Model smashed Samsung UA65NU8000

I have emailed ACCC and Choice online. Response awaited

What shall I do, need help?

  1. Cough up $1000
  2. Go on the legal policy/ACCC path
  3. Mod: Removed (Illegal/Inappropriate)
Electrical & Electronics

Related Stores

Harvey Norman
Harvey Norman

Comments

    • tranter on 02/01/2019 - 23:54
      -4

      You payed for every single thing you broke in your lifetime? Really?

      • AdosHouse on 03/01/2019 - 02:43
        +10

        As a kid, if I damaged someone else's property my parents payed for it. As should happen in this case.

        As an adult, if I damages someone else's property, you bet I pay for it.

        • gyrex on 03/01/2019 - 09:50
          +5

          I hate to be a stickler but there's no such word as 'payed', the word you're looking for is 'paid'.

          • tranter on 03/01/2019 - 11:47
            +2

            @gyrex: I hate to be a stickler but there is such a word as payed. In this case I used the nautical version by mistake.

            • jebdra on 09/01/2019 - 14:59

              @tranter: Thank you - I've learnt a new word today.

      • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 10:15
        +4

        As an adult? Every god damn time.

        What's wrong with some people?

        • tranter on 03/01/2019 - 10:43
          -5

          Last year I accidentally broke something in a shop worth $30 and they said don't worry about it. They didn't want me to pay so I didn't.

          If there's something wrong with me so be it. :)

          • Jugganautx on 03/01/2019 - 11:31
            +3

            @tranter: $30 vs $2000… pointless story.

            • tranter on 03/01/2019 - 12:02

              @Jugganautx: I was referring to the generalisation 'you break it, you pay for it'. In the real world it doesn't always happen like that and it's not that simple.

              I've also broken stuff at work that I didn't have to pay for.

              OP may also be able to make a claim on their home contents insurance policy if it includes public liability cover.

              • gromit on 03/01/2019 - 15:58

                @tranter: "You break it, you pay for it" refers to who is responsible for paying for the damage. you finding a shop where you broke something cheap and weren't forced to pay by the store salesperson is irrelevant, you were still liable for the damages if they wished to enforce it.

      • cloudy on 05/01/2019 - 10:06
        +9

        Yep, my mum used to tell me off for playing with stuff at shops, telling me if I break it I’d have to pay for it, she would even give my hand a gentle slap if I had “naughty” hands.

        Later when I was old enough to work at our fruit shop, I notice she would tell people off for ruining the fruit and ask them to pay. IE, if they stick a finger nail into an apple to see if it’s crunchy expecting it’s ok to leave marks on fruit for others to buy.

        We all learnt early to respect other people’s goods.

        My mum never had any education, couldn’t afford to finish primary school in Hk but seems to be a better person than some of this forum.

        • tranter on 05/01/2019 - 10:48

          Well said.

  • ibfragalot on 02/01/2019 - 23:24
    +2

    If it makes you feel any better OP, same thing happened to me, just in my home. My 1 year old boy smashed my 50" Panasonic plasma a few weeks ago, hit it with a toy saucepan. I was surprised at the damage for such a little guy.

    For those in the market, I ended up grabbing the 65" TCL Smart TV for $849 delivered (eBay, similar at JBHIFI), with a free wall mount kit to keep it out of his reach! The plasma definitely had better color, but it's overall an incredible picture, especially with youtube 4K video.

    • diddy50 on 03/01/2019 - 11:31
      +2

      may your Pana Plasma RIP :(

      Mines hanging on the wall, still going strong.
      Love it

      • ChickenTalon on 04/01/2019 - 22:25

        16 month old has just drawn all over the front of my Samsung F8500. Thank god it’s washable marker.

  • Eeples on 02/01/2019 - 23:31

    Did Harvey say you get the tv if you pay $1000?

    • senor cogswallop on 03/01/2019 - 10:54
      +3

      After paying the $1000, make sure you do get the TV so you can use it as wall mounted radio for those free radio (SBS Arabic 24, SBS Radio 1, SBS Radio 2, SBS Radio 3, Double J, ABC Jazz etc.).

  • tranter on 02/01/2019 - 23:35
    +7

    The question is where does this very neat $1000 figure come from?

    • Sharp on 03/01/2019 - 20:09
      +6

      This! $1000 is just gonna be shared by the sales reps and they’re gonna laugh behind your back because they made money without a sale thanks to you.

      HN or any larger retailer have coverage in their supply/dealership contracts for this type of accidents.

      They’re just trying to rip you off. Dont pay anything!

  • Adz81 on 02/01/2019 - 23:59

    Goddamn kids… Constant drain on resources and the main reason you can't have nice things.

    Cough up the coin, if it's the only $1k it costs you in its life, you're well ahead.

  • brokenglish on 03/01/2019 - 00:01
    +3

    They probably have some sort of cover, no way they’re only asking for $1000 for broken TV, profit margin cant be that huge. This $1000 is most likely their excess fee to claim some sort of insurance. The suggestion by the lady is good if you can claim it in your home contents insurance, definitely less than < $1000.

    • jace88 on 03/01/2019 - 11:40

      I also guessed that $1k must be their excess in which case it's a reasonable request.

    • Ughhh on 03/01/2019 - 00:07
      +5

      made public there would be a huge backlash and alot of negative publicity.

      My bet is that op will end up receiving the backlash.

      • garetz on 03/01/2019 - 00:08
        -8

        I very much doubt it, he wasnt even there, kids do stupid shit, it happens, the bigger issue is them not having insurance.

        • Hybroid on 03/01/2019 - 00:16
          +5

          I don't think many will share your view. It's damage caused by the individual and they/their guardian are responsible for it, not the company nor their insurance.

        • Ughhh on 03/01/2019 - 00:51
          +2

          The wife was there?

          Would you have the same view if the toddler threw a bottle at your car and caused a dent/scratch? Good thing you have insurance, so you can pay the excess yourself.

        • Adz81 on 03/01/2019 - 11:54

          "…Huge backlash and a lot of negative publicity…"

          What utter bullshit.

          "…Also call a TV channel…"

          Nothing like a good trash program like ACA or Today Tonight to get to the bottom of things. What crap. There is no way that anyone sensible would be siding with the parent here, particularly if it was the parent that went public.

          Yes, kids do stupid shit. Normal practice is for parents to either reign them in, or take responsibility.

          The bigger (profanity) issue is not them having insurance (which they probably do- as has been mentioned here), it's people thinking that a store having insurance is a bigger (profanity) issue than taking responsibility of their crotch nugget's behaviour.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 02:18
      +2

      It's no accident if a bottle was thrown at it. If the kid jumped and the floor shook and it fell without touching, that's different.

    • whooah1979 on 03/01/2019 - 08:03
      +4

      must have insurance for accidental damage and liability insurance

      Public liability insurance is compulsory, but accidental damage is optional.
      https://www.business.gov.au/risk-management/insurance

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 10:12

      breaching some laws

      What laws are you referring to? You are being very vaugue.

    • try2bhelpful on 03/01/2019 - 10:17

      You want to give us a URL that covers this? They would need public liability insurance for personal injury but, I assume, insurance of goods would be on the basis of the organisation. Given the amount of stock HN has I would be very surprised if they insured the majority of their stock.

    • jebdra on 09/01/2019 - 15:06

      I'm sure they do have insurance, but why should they have to claim on it. It wasn't an accident. It was a deliberate act. The child threw a bottle.

      If somebody runs into your car, should you have to claim on YOUR insurance, pay the excess and subsequently pay a higher premium?

  • bremo on 03/01/2019 - 08:42
    +1

    So the replacement cost to them for this TV is EXACTLY $1000??? I call bullocks. Sounds like a figure they just pulled out of thin air. They should be charging you wholesale cost of this tv.

    • pais on 03/01/2019 - 08:50
      +5

      Wholesale cost for a TV that retails at 2,000 would be well over 1,000. So sure, you can argue OP should be paying more.

      • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 10:10

        Yeah around 40% off rrp, then add overheads etc. Likely 30% off RRP. So I feel like they have taken it pretty easy on him. They could have charged him staff proce. (Probanly around $1600).

  • John Kimble on 03/01/2019 - 08:49
    +6

    I cannot fathom that a business like this doesn't have accident insurance (yes I saw it is optional in a previous comment). I'm guessing they just don't want to claim or claiming has a $1000 excess?

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 10:09
      +1

      I think its realistic to think a store with 2million plus stock would have an excess in the thousands of dollars.

      • thatonethere on 03/01/2019 - 19:21
        +1

        Where i work the excess is $50k per claim….

    • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 10:18

      Or their premium takes a hit.

    • try2bhelpful on 03/01/2019 - 10:19
      +1

      Given the amount of stock, and likelyhood of damages, it would not be economic to cover. There are a number of large organisations that self insure their goods,

    • bargaino on 03/01/2019 - 16:37
      +2

      If they claim on insurance, the insurance company then chases the liable party for the cost.
      Insurance does not solve the problem.

      • resisting the urge on 08/01/2019 - 18:20

        It is not worth chasing down small claims like this, at least not yet.

        The robots are coming to get every last one of us though…

    • Sharp on 03/01/2019 - 20:17
      +4

      They’re not gonna claim it from insurance. They’ll just send it back to Samsung and Samsung will replace it for free. And $1000 will be shared by the TV sales reps.

      OP, don’t pay anything and report the incident to HN head office.

  • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 09:03

    I’m curious, what would people would say if this happened in their home and not the store?

    • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 10:18
      +1

      Looked for someone else to blame or take responsibility. Duh.

  • Whisper Quiet on 03/01/2019 - 09:03
    -1

    Like someone else commented earlier, if a child damages a car it would be covered under insurance. Just like all department stores have insurance for their stock. So not sure if paying them $1000 is actually legitimate. Possibly paying the excess fee would be more inline with the right thing to do if any. Which is usually $500 max. For huge stores like Harvey Norman they will almost definitely pay less…
    To me it sounds like they don't want to go through insurance by saying they have no accidental cover. Going for the quick fix and getting you to pay $1000.
    Maybe the lesson is don't bring food and drink into any store like they usually tell you on the door. Especially when the kid is walking around hundreds of thousands worth of stock. Tell the wife the child doesn't need to have a drink that often could have waited until they got back to the car.
    Are they going to send you a letter with details about it or just expecting you to pay cash upfront?

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 10:04

      What makes you think stores have accidental coverage insurance?

      Water damage from pipes, fires, large claimable theft etc. Sure… think of the immense costs of such an insurance.

      I would like to know more if we have any large business owners.

      Also… the amount of kids who bash their hands on TV's on display and many parents don't tell the children off until you tell them they are liable for the damage and TV's get damaged surprisingly easily.

    • djsherly on 03/01/2019 - 11:47

      Well I suppose the store can claim on their policy, then the insurance company will get details of the person who caused the damage and chase them for an amount. Paying an excess doesn’t mean the case is over. It is from the policyholders perspective but it almost certainly is not from the insurers.

      • Whisper Quiet on 03/01/2019 - 13:08

        Well obviously that's something he would have to work out with Harvey Norman if it did happen

      • chumlee on 03/01/2019 - 13:11
        +1

        So you think after a Royal Commission has just finished, an insurance company will chase a toddler for a debt??

  • h4zey on 03/01/2019 - 09:24
    -2

    Pay 1000 but with the condition that you get to keep the smashed tv. You can then salvage its parts, sell or repair them.

    Get them to send the letter of demand to your toddler as you are not responsible for the damage.

    the latter is a joke but wonder if it's actually work, i mean if your teenage kids stole a car, does the parent/guardian get charged?

    • lltravel on 03/01/2019 - 09:56
      +7

      you're joking right?
      if a toddler threw something at your windscreen and it shattered you would let it go?
      give me a break

      Their parents are responsible for their kid's actions. Simple

      He needs to pay.

      • h4zey on 03/01/2019 - 10:01
        +1

        the latter is a joke but wonder if it's actually work, i mean if your teenage kids stole a car, does the parent/guardian get charged?

        • jelko on 03/01/2019 - 16:21

          Get charged with what? A crime? The parents didn't commit any crime so they won't be charged with anything. The teenager would be charged with the crime and they would be responsible for paying any costs associated with that crime. If the teenager can't pay for it and they are under 18 years old then the parents would be liable.

          • h4zey on 03/01/2019 - 16:29

            @jelko: not all heroes wear cape

  • Pinchy on 03/01/2019 - 09:40
    -8

    No way should you pay $1000. Far from reasonable. It is their decision to place a TV out of its packinging on display. If an accident happens because of that than it is on them. HN would have some sort of internal policy when this stuff happens and will be written off as a loss. This happens all the time in stores such as JB and they don’t make you pay. It’s an acceptable risk for them.
    I would simply ignore it and let HN deal with it. They ain’t gonna chase you for $1000. It’s a lot to you but nothing to them.

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 09:53
      +3

      Everything in your post is incorrect. JB Hi-Fi would make the customer or contractor pay for damage they cauaed. A contractor was paid to put up (wall mount on samsung display) a $5000 Samsung Oled. He smashed the screen (thumbs into he corner of the TV) while wall mounting and the installation contractor was required to pay (and provately claim insurance).

      The child damaged the TV and the parent is responsible for the child. The TV is more than likely a write off and therefore they are just claiming the cost of the TV direct from the supplier. You can argue that you would like to keep the TV, they may agree. I doubt you will find anyone to fix it though and i don't know how much you will have to pay or how much you will get for selling the parts.

      If a friends child came to my house and threw something at my wall mounted TV. I would expect them to replace it. I would do the same.

      Managers get paid bonuses on P&L. You don't just write things off for fun.

      TlDR: They probably won't chase you for the $1000, but karma will haha.

      • Pinchy on 03/01/2019 - 11:47

        Ok well first I worked for jbhifi and it was never enforced for customers. Stolen items outweigh by far the number of display items broken and they were never recovered either.

        One time a tv was smashed by some people acting stupid and they tried to get them to pay it (due to being clear negligence and not an accident) but with no customer details it never got paid.

        And only $1000 doesn’t give you bad credit. Even if a debt agency chases you. It simply isn’t enough. They’d have to start a court case and bring you to court which costs way more than 1k.

        The TV in your house is a bit different to the one on display that a rich company is trying to sell many of.

        Karma for HN? The company that has been stealing money and warranty claims from customers for decades? Haha

        • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 12:32
          +4

          I have worked for JB Hi-Fi for 10 years, Harvey Norman for 1 year and Myer for 1 year. Just because the customer did not pay in this one case that you cited because no details were provided, does not make this policy.

          I can only remember a handful of situations where this occured. Normally if it was a genuine accident due to the location of a display (display TV sitting on boxes of the TV's). No one would be considered liable. This is a different case. The child should not have been put in that situation (don't give them a missile when around fragile panels).

          Also you clearly have no idea how Harvey Norman is run. I think you should read into it and you might find you are breaking the property of some poor chap. Once again, everu item that is written off goes against P&L. This includes theft and stocktake results. In a store that has 2mil in stock, we would often have around 15k in variances over 6 months. Therefore an extra 2k is significant.

          I agree that shrinkage is a greater cost, but this is not relevant.

          I have never had an issue making a legitimate warranty claim where physical damage wasn't attributed.

    • gyrex on 03/01/2019 - 09:53
      +1

      It's people like you which make the modern world a sad place to live in.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 10:22
      +2

      It's also your choice to bring a toddler armed with a projectile and left unsupervised in a store that you very well know has fragile goods on display.

      Decent people have this policy - taking responsibility.

  • lltravel on 03/01/2019 - 09:57
    +5

    lol so your kid damages someone else property and you don't want to pay? This is why we cant have nice things.

  • anawth on 03/01/2019 - 09:59
    +3

    Someone you're responsible for broke TV
    They asked you to pay $1000
    Logically, that's what they value it at
    Say you'll pay it, but you want another one for the same price
    Give them $2000.
    Get the broken TV and the new one.
    Sell the new one, and you'll probably only be a few hundred bucks down.
    Then claim the broken one on home and contents
    PROFIT!

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 10:32
      +3

      Interesting idea. But they have probably charged $1000 as good will and are taking the hit on the overheads. I don't think they will sell you another under staff price (cost plus overheads usually).

    • gromit on 03/01/2019 - 16:05
      +4

      So basically you are advocating insurance fraud.

      • anawth on 03/01/2019 - 16:14
        -1

        yes, absolutely.

        • gromit on 03/01/2019 - 17:32
          +3

          seems awfully big risk to commit a crime with possible jail term to save such a small amount, but if you have such low morals or care for consequences then sure go for it. Personally if it was me even if I knew I would get away with it I have enough morals to know stealing in wrong.

          • anawth on 03/01/2019 - 20:02
            +1

            @gromit: Remember that time in The Simpsons Professor Frink made a sarcasm detector? I sense a market for it.

  • Some Human on 03/01/2019 - 10:02
    +4

    Why does this thread even exist?

    • Melb69 on 03/01/2019 - 10:08
      +11

      Because most OZBs don't take responsibility for their own or others actions if they are responsible for minors. There are so many threads of how can I get out of a fine.

      • lltravel on 03/01/2019 - 10:24
        +4

        aussie privilege

        • myusername on 04/01/2019 - 12:42
          +1

          white tears

        • doheedo on 07/01/2019 - 10:56

          *entitlement

  • Melb69 on 03/01/2019 - 10:10
    +2

    I would negotiate further the price as its used, so should be even cheaper then half price. Display model that could have been on for months every day from 10-5pm.

    Also like OPs second option. So get legal advice. Yeah do that. Lawyers would be happy you walked in the door. WTF.

  • jhmtaylor on 03/01/2019 - 10:14
    +10

    They certainly will have accidental damage but the excess they have to pay will be between $5K and $20K in order to keep the cost of insurance down.

    I am not a lawyer (retired insurance broker)but I think you are liable for the damage.

    The good news is that if you have home contents insurance you will have personal liability cover. Ask HN to send you a letter of demand and forward it to your insurer. Advise HN that you are insured and to take the matter up with your insurer ( Give them the name, address, policy number of your insurer). If you have any issues with the insurance I am happy to assist so PM me.

    • Noblejoker on 03/01/2019 - 10:22

      Agreed - I added my reply below before reading yours

    • rlay3 on 03/01/2019 - 15:40

      Wow, I did not know this! I can't seem to find this in my policy though… it says it only covers damage to other people and their people "at your home address". Does it depend on the insurance product?

      • Ughhh on 03/01/2019 - 15:42

        Does it depend on the insurance product?

        Yes, that's why some are more expensive than others. You get what you pay for, don't make at assumptions.

        • jhmtaylor on 03/01/2019 - 17:10

          I would be very surprised if any contents policy sold within Australia did not include personal liability. I did a quick check on one of the well known elcheapo's and it was included. It is a very important benefit to the consumer and there are very few claims made each year, so it is not a big deal for the insurer to include it.

      • jhmtaylor on 03/01/2019 - 17:04
        +2

        You are looking at the property owners liability section which is linked to the building section not the Personal liability section linked to the Contents section.

        • rlay3 on 03/01/2019 - 18:34

          Thanks, found it! If it helps anyone else, mine was detailed in the PDS under the "legal liability" section.

  • Bangatangz72 on 03/01/2019 - 10:20
    +1

    I would be checking with the manufacturer if the display model was provided at no cost to the store or an extremely reduced cost.

    Working for a company that has electronic product display stands in Harvey Norman stores when a product is broken we are simply expected to replace it at no cost to the store. This may be the same for the display TV depending on the deal they have with the manufacturer and that model.

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 10:26

      All display TV stock is normal stock. White goods often have a floor damage allowance (~10% rrp) that you can claim (back from the supplier) for when you are trying to clear discontinued and scratched display models.

      The fact you replaced them is because the branded walls are paid for by the manufacturers. They are responsibly for upkeep and the display stock warranty until it is discontinued and sold. I find it hard to believe they would replace it for free if physically damaged.

  • Noblejoker on 03/01/2019 - 10:20
    +2

    Do you have Home Contents insurance - should include personal liability cover
    (FYI Building covers property ownership liability and Contents covers personal)
    This would fall under that category as would hitting a car with your shopping trolley or similar events
    Call your insurer and get a letter from HN for TV

    HN definitely have cover - but probably a $1K excess - hence they ask you to pay that

    If you don't claim then try nicely bargaining
    Explain from your situation, cry poor and offer a lower amount

    • dufflover on 03/01/2019 - 10:36

      I was just thinking that. Definitely agree with the general (I would've thought common sense) you-break-it-you-buy-it, but I just happened to have recently flicked through my RACV insurance booklet before throwing it out and it had Liability cover as part of it.

    • trapper on 07/01/2019 - 19:11

      Personal liability cover won't cover things for which you are not personally liable…

      • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 11:23

        OP (or his wife) was personally liable for failing to supervise their kid.

        • trapper on 08/01/2019 - 12:47

          Not legally. Your insurance is not just going to gift Harvey Norman any amount of money.

          • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 12:49

            @trapper: Maybe not, but OP or his wife is liable. If their insurance won't cover it, they'll have to.

            • trapper on 08/01/2019 - 13:17

              @HighAndDry: Her insurance won't cover it because she is not liable, they don't just give out money for fun.

              Liability does not transfer from one person to another, especially not from someone who is not liable in the first place - aka the toddler.

              Harvey Normal would need to demonstrate liability directly, ie the accident was foreseeable by the parent. And even then is it not also foreseeable by Harvey Norman that allowing toddlers around their stock could result in occasional damage?

              • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 13:25

                @trapper: Ah I see where you're misunderstanding. The liability isn't transferring - it didn't go from "Toddler is liable" to "Parents are liable". The original liability are with the parents for failing to supervise the toddler leading to damage.

                Harvey Normal would need to demonstrate liability directly, ie the accident was foreseeable by the parent. And even then is it not also foreseeable by Harvey Norman that allowing toddlers around their stock could result in occasional damage?

                You're right. But HN has no duty to supervise the toddler. The parents, however, do. And you're seriously arguing that you can't foresee damaged products if you let a toddler be inadequately supervised in a shop? Com'on. Common sense here.

                • trapper on 08/01/2019 - 13:37

                  @HighAndDry: Properly supervised children can still cause damage, they are not normally wheeled around in a cage.

                  • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 14:08
                    +1

                    @trapper: By definition, properly supervised children do not cause thousands of dollars of damage.

                    • trapper on 08/01/2019 - 14:19
                      -1

                      @HighAndDry: Not by any legal definition.

                      Your idea of 'proper supervision' would probably constitute child abuse lol

                      • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 14:24

                        @trapper: By logical definition. If a kid is causing thousands in damage, whatever supervision they were under obviously wasn't enough.

                        Also, yes, how dare parents stop their children from throwing things around. How abusive. Wtf are you on?

                        • trapper on 08/01/2019 - 14:36
                          -1

                          @HighAndDry: A fully restrained child, unable to make any uncontrolled or unpredictable movement, maybe in a straitjacket or even a cage? haha

                          • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 14:39

                            @trapper: Or just not give the kid something they can throw? And yes, even restraints. You might be surprised to know that car seats and supermarket trolleys all have these, and apparently haven't fallen afoul of the Geneva Convention against Torture yet.

                            • trapper on 08/01/2019 - 14:47

                              @HighAndDry: Not sufficient by your definition. Maybe you could zip-tie the arms to the sides of the pram.

                              • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 14:50

                                @trapper: Never seen a toddler in a trolley, with the seat belt on and not holding loose items, do any kind of damage.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join