Bit of perspective required please...

smcicr

Hi,

I'm going round in circles a bit here and would appreciate an external pov.

I got burgled on Thursday night / Friday morning, the old bar through the letterbox job to open the front door. I'm presuming they were after the car but they also had various 'easy to carry' items (PS3, mobile, wallet etc) on the way through.

I have Tesco Finest Home/Contents insurance and Privilege (fully comp) car insurance.

I'm trying to work out if I'm right in suspecting that I'm going to get little if anything out of either company for stuff that was in the car:

TomTom (I know, I know...take it out of the car)
CD's
Sunglasses
Running Shoes

Nothing was out in the open / on display.

I'm figuring the Home insurance will avoid a payout based on:

Personal Possessions: Loss / Damage

"We will pay for accidental loss of or damage to Personal Possessions and any other item specified in the Personal Possessions Section of the schedule while that property is within the British Isles. But not the following:
...theft from an unattended motor vehicle unless the item is hidden from view within the vehicle and violence and force is used to get into the vehicle." (my bold)

And that the car insurance will avoid paying anything more than £100 which is the limit on the schedule for 'personal belongings'...

There is another section which states that:

'Car Audio / Sound Reproduction / Telephone Equipment / Satellite Navigation Equipment / In Car Entertainment Sytems' has a limit of £1000

but in the policy booklet there is an exception which reads:

(We will not cover...)

"Any amount over that shown in the schedule for loss of or damage to permanently fitted in-car audio, television, phone, games console, electronic navigation or radar detection equipment..." (again, my bold)

and additionally:

"Loss or damage to readily removable in-car electronic equipment, unless secured in a locked boot or glove compartment."

I struggle a little with the last one because the car was taken 'with the key', they broke into my house to get it, so it makes no odds at all in this instance that the sat-nav was in the glove box (which incidentally [strike]doesn't[/strike] didn't lock anyway).

Anyway - any input from someone external to this or any info from anyone with the above companies who have had similar claims greatly appreciated. This is my first experience of being robbed so reeling slightly from that and have a nice case of man-flu as well just for good measure so I'm not in the best shape for making rational judgements on this.

Thanks (and apologies for the huge post...)

StuartGMC

Firstly, do ensure you advise your insurers ASAP with the crime number from the Police. If you delay too long they may be less willing to assist.

You note the car keys were stolen from the house; was there forceful entry into the house or does "the old bar through the letterbox job to open the front door." mean they hooked house keys to enter?

Glove box presumably had a lock, but presumably car key would open it even if locked?

I think your best bet is to call them up, starting with house contents and talk it through noting key points you have below, then car insurers. The least that can happen is that you improve on present situation.

I'd be interested in their response.
Good luck

smcicr

Thanks for the reply...

- Crime number supplied to both insurers on Friday morning (Police were very prompt).
- Entry: I mean they used an angled bar through the letterbox to open the door by turning the handle.
- Nope - glove box had no lock, just a latch. (Although even if it did have a lock the fact they had the keys would make it a moot point imo)

I'm compiling receipts etc for Home insurance currently and have a phone interview (15 minutes long they said) with the Car insurer on Wednesday.

To be honest, I've not been hugely impressed with their CS so far. Was initially told I'd get a call Friday afternoon, called them back Friday PM with additional contact details and was told that they were 'very busy at the moment' and it would be Monday (today), get the call today and had to push hard to get the slot on Wednesday. I may be expecting too much here (I have no point of reference in the industry) but it's not living up to their spiel at the moment: 'A claims process fit for a King...' etc etc. It might be the dull everyday event for them but it's something a little different for me...

Gangstabird

Hub's van was burgled last year and they took a strong box out of it, which took 2 men to carry in without being filled with tools, so it must have taken at least 4 to take it.

My house insurance covered it because it was on our drive, so was classed as an outbuilding?? Does this help.

smcicr

Thanks for that - I'll have another dig through the policy documents in the morning. Can't hurt to look.

FlameCloud

There has been force and violence used to enter the vehicle though. The force is pushing the bar through and using the handle to open the lock. There has also been violence- as they have circumnavigated the lock in an abnormal fashion.

I cant for the life of me remembe the case name at the moment by this part of insurance law was formed when a thief hid in the basement of a house with a shop next door, and used a coat hanger to pick the lock. Insuer argued no Forc/violence, judge disagreed and said what I mentioned above.

You should be fine.

smcicr

Thanks - gives me something else to hammer google for tomorrow - if you do happen to remember please pass it on!

FlameCloud

Ok- here you go, have dug up the textbooks. (Judges summing up of the claim)

Calf Vs The Sun Insurance Office (1920)
· “If a person turns a key he uses force but not violence. If he uses a skeleton key, he uses force but not violence. If on the other hand, instead of using a key, he uses a pick-lock or some other instrument or a piece of wire, by which as a lever he forces back the lock, it appears to me that he uses force and violence.”

Key Principle is that -
"Any means of overcoming locks other than the normal means to operate them would constitute both force and violence, within the context of a theft policy"

And should they try and say that the car hasn't suffered force and violence-

Dino Services Limited v Prudential Assurance Company Limited (1989)
· The unlawful use of the key constituted force and violence

(This is bascially the reverse of your claim, where the car was broken into and the house keys stolen before gaining entry. Same thing applies, it is how you obtain the keys that is the key.

smcicr

Much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time

FlameCloud

smcicr wrote: »

Much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time

No problems. It does my career good to refresh the facts every once in a while!