Data Recovery Case File · Trust, Practice & Honest Limits · Itemise Before You Start
An Insurance Claim Needs Each Device Priced Separately, Which Also Happens to Be Correct Practice
His enquiry is written for someone other than the recovery lab, and that shapes the answer. Three devices soaked in a flood — two laptops and an external drive — with the request framed plainly: "I'm looking for a quote for my insurance company." An insurer needs each device assessed and priced on its own, and so does anyone deciding what to spend, which makes the two requirements the same requirement.
| Media | Two laptop computers and one external hard drive, all subject to flood immersion — storage architecture varying between them; assessment required in a form suitable for an insurance claim |
| Reported situation | Property flooded · two laptop computers and one external drive immersed · content required from all three · quotation requested for submission to an insurer · devices retained by the owner |
| Fault class | Multiple devices with liquid immersion — corrosion progressing on each; storage removability differing by device and determining both cost and prospects |
| Equipment used | Each device assessed and priced independently rather than as one job · no device powered at any point · boards examined at component level under magnification with corrosion mapped per device · storage removed and imaged independently where removable · findings issued per device in writing suitable for submission |
The decode: why separate assessment matters twice over
Why an insurer needs itemisation: claims are settled per item. A single combined figure cannot be assessed against the value of any individual device, and it is likely to be queried.
Why the same structure serves him personally: the devices are not equally worth recovering. Prospects and cost differ by device, and a combined figure hides which is which.
Why they differ so much despite identical exposure: architecture. A drive whose storage unplugs is a different proposition from a machine whose memory is soldered to the board.
Why the external drive is likely the most favourable: the storage is separable and the enclosure is sacrificial. A drive removed from a flooded enclosure is frequently undamaged.
Why the laptops vary between themselves: generation. Older machines have a removable drive; newer ones have memory soldered beside the processor, sometimes encrypted against a component on that board — so the board must survive.
Why none of them should be powered to find out: that is the whole risk. Liquid damages a board by carrying current through paths it has bridged, and switching on is what supplies the current.
Why time matters more than in most cases: three devices are corroding simultaneously. Residue remains chemically active and draws moisture from the air, so all three are getting worse while the claim is discussed.
Why that argues for assessing before the claim is settled: insurers take time. Waiting for authorisation costs condition, and an assessment costs nothing.
What the assessment should contain to be usable: per-device findings and figures in writing. Condition, prospects and cost for each, in a form that can be submitted.
What is worth checking in parallel, at no cost: what already exists elsewhere. Cloud accounts, phones and other machines frequently hold a share of what was on a laptop, and anything found reduces what the claim needs to cover.
On the bench
Each device was assessed and priced independently rather than as one job — claims being settled per item, while prospects and cost differ by device according to storage architecture: an external drive's storage separates from a sacrificial enclosure, older laptops offer a removable drive, and newer ones solder memory beside the processor with encryption bound to that board. Liquid damage proceeds by current through bridged paths, so none was powered. Findings were issued per device in writing.
The outcome
Each device assessed and priced independently, no device powered, and corrosion mapped per device. Free assessment, one fixed written figure including VAT per device; where a drive has to be opened or a chip removed, 50% of parts and labour is payable upfront with the balance only on success. The decode: what your insurer needs and what you need are the same thing. Claims settle per item, and the three devices differ enormously in both prospects and cost — a combined figure would hide which is which.
Several devices damaged in one event
Ask for them assessed and priced separately, and don't wait for the claim to be authorised before doing it. Insurers settle per item, so a combined figure is likely to be queried — and separate figures also tell you which devices are worth recovering, since prospects vary enormously with how the storage is built. Don't power any of them: liquid damages a board by carrying current through the paths it bridges, and switching on supplies the current. All three are corroding while the claim is discussed.
Assess before it is settled — call Cambridge Data Recovery on 01223 655015; each device priced independently, corrosion mapped per device, findings issued in writing suitable for submission.
Request a quote online →
Our case files are drawn from genuine enquiries received by our laboratory over the past ten years, anonymised to protect client confidentiality. Each one describes the diagnostic and recovery procedure our engineers apply to that fault, using the equipment listed.