The new iPhone launch: what it means for gadget claims
28th August 2026
Apple has confirmed its next launch event for Wednesday 9 September, and the line-up looks different from the ones that came before it. The Pro models are expected to be joined by Apple’s first foldable handset, while the standard iPhone is reported to be held back until spring 2027, which makes this a premium-only September. For gadget schemes that usually see a fairly predictable pattern of claims in the fortnight after a launch, this new launch could change things.
We spoke to Samantha Adams, Operations Manager for Validations and Repair, about what her team is expecting, how the questioning changes in the weeks before a launch, and why the conversation on the first call matters so much.
When are insurers likely to see an impact on claim volumes?
The announcement is on the ninth, and pre-orders and general availability follow after that, so nothing much changes in the claims picture until the handset is available to customers. We would expect to see the first of it in the week commencing 21 September rather than in the days around the keynote itself.
What we tend to see first is accidental damage, and mostly cracked or broken screens. Somebody has a new phone over the launch weekend, they take it out and use it, and cases and protectors for a new model are not always widely available straight away. That combination produces a fairly recognisable run of claims, and then it settles back down.
How big an increase are you planning for?
In a normal year, and based on previous launches, we would work on roughly a five per cent increase in claims across the first month, and then a return towards normal levels after that. Recent launches do not move the numbers the way they did when the iPhone first arrived, because Samsung and other manufacturers now hold a much larger share of the market, and because the market itself is far broader than phones. People are insuring Oura rings, Garmin watches and all sorts of other wearable technology, so no single handset dominates in the way it once did.
This year is a different proposition though. A foldable is not a specification upgrade, it is a new type of device, and it is going to be an expensive one. People will be handling something they have never handled before, and there is a hinge and a folding display involved. Also, it’s a notable step up from previous models and therefore we’re more likely to see opportunistic and fraudulent claims. I would expect the increase to run higher than the five per cent we would usually plan for.
The thing that could change the shape of it is supply. Reports suggest the foldable may go on sale later than the Pro models because early production is limited, and if that holds we would expect those claims spread across a longer window.
Why does this show up as loss and damage rather than theft?
Because theft requires a crime reference number. To claim for a stolen phone you have to report it to the police, and that is a meaningful step for anybody to take especially for fraudulent claims.
Loss and accidental damage are definitely the more straightforward routes and that is true of ordinary claims as much as anything else. Somebody leaves a phone on a train, somebody drops one on a kitchen floor – those are the narratives we are handling.
How do you test a loss claim when there is not much to go on?
It comes down to the first call, ordinary common sense and listening for the parts of an account that do not sit together. A loss is a loss, and often there is very little physical evidence either way, so the conversation itself is the evidence.
A simple example is somebody telling us their phone went from their pocket during a thirty minute bus journey. Most of us would check or use a phone at some point in half an hour, so that is a reasonable thing to ask about. It is not a challenge to the customer, it is just a question that helps us understand what happened and when.
The team have had training in what to look for and technology and handler experience tend to work very well together here. When you have handled thousands of claims you become very adept at picking up on things.
What is a customer actually insured to receive?
That depends on the policy and on the insurer, and the insurer decides how each claim is settled under its terms. The general position is a like-for-like replacement, and we cannot give somebody something better than the handset they insured. If their model is no longer available we would look at the next appropriate device rather than the newest or the highest specification one, or settle on the value of the item where that applies.
On valuation, we do not work from general resale marketplaces. The equivalent device is established through our approved pricing approach, and our suppliers can provide refurbished handsets, because a customer insured for a replacement device is insured to receive a refurbished equivalent where that is appropriate to the cover.
Where it gets more nuanced is customers who have already bought a replacement, and around a launch there are more of those. People tell us they could not manage without a phone and those claims may well be cash settled where the circumstances support it, but it still depends on the assessment of the claim rather than being automatic.
And where you have concerns you cannot substantiate?
We keep the replacement route and we apply the policy wording. If we have a concern about a claim but not enough to decline it, providing the insured replacement is the proportionate answer, and it is also the fairest one, because the customer with a genuine claim gets exactly what they are entitled to without being held up.
Somebody may go on to sell that replacement and put the money towards a different handset, and that is their business. The obligation is to provide the replacement the policy covers, not to fund an upgrade, and holding that line quietly and consistently is what keeps the outcome right for everybody on the scheme.
What should teams be doing between now and the ninth?
Firstly going back over the standard questioning and tightening it, and making sure every handler understands the relevant policy wording and is talking about replacement devices in the same way. Consistency across a team really matters.
The second is expectation setting at triage. On that first call we should be explaining that the customer is insured for a like-for-like replacement, and that the final outcome will be discussed once all the documentation is in. That conversation needs to happen before we start requesting documents, not after. What it prevents is somebody carrying an assumption for two weeks that a claim is going to result in the newest model, and then being disappointed at the end of a process they have already put effort into.
That discipline is worth having in place well beyond September, because demand for cash settlement tends to stay elevated right through to Christmas, when the same conversation comes up across a much wider range of items.
