I use the insurers that the first post linked to. This policy covers insurance for a spare whilst on holiday as well. I too read the other post on another forum and if its the same one, the poster said that they would only replace with a second hand pump of their choosing!!! I have it in writing from them that they replace on a like for like basis with a new replacement pump. They're fully regulated and underwritten by Lloyds. Of course, if people can get the same cover on their house insurance much cheaper then go for it.
The poster in question was me, and I reviewed the policy wording itself, not what the broker was saying about it. Because in law, it doesn't give a hang what the broker says. If the policy fails, and leaves you up the creek without a paddle - well you are of course at liberty to sue the broker cos you have it in writing. Doesn't help you replace the pump right now this minute though, does it?
I know it isn't in his interest to fib to pumpers and that's all very well. But if the cover really is so great, why doesn't the policy wording actually reflect that?
In law the policy states that the replacement is at their option, it does (or did, this was when it first came out a while ago now) NOT say like for like. Same as it says the repairer is at their option. I mean that's potty, if you have a Medtronic then Roche certainly won't repair it and vice versa. But what if (silly I know, but they could!) they had a bloke somewhere in a shed that did it cheaper?
See what I mean?
Plain English policy wordings have never been the forte of Lloyd's underwriters - so the broker needs to stand his corner with them and insist on getting the wording his client needs so there are no grey areas. It's how brokers earn their commission.
Just my humble opinion as a retired insurance broker of the old school.
You pays your money and you takes your chance.