We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Car key theft & car burglary Claim refused as force not used

Options
We have two sets of insurance, one for property for our business and the other vehicle insurance.
Recently someone broke into our place of work, stole the car keys to a van full of tools and hire goods and drove away.

Both insurance companies are refusing to pay based on the fact that 'force' was not used to steal the vehicle/goods.

Force was used to steal the car keys in the first place and as the vehicle was locked and alarmed I cannot see how they can prove that force wasnt used? The car was locked then it was gone!

Also the car insurance wont cover business property within the vehicle and the property insurance (which covers theft from a site and in transit and the car was parked in the driveway of the site) is also refusing based on the fact that the goods where in the vehicle and the vehicle isnt insured with them.

Any advice on how we can argue this legitimate case?
Thanks

Comments

  • Sponge
    Sponge Posts: 834 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 1 March 2010 at 2:20PM
    How did they break in to the building to steal the keys? If the building was secure, then did they not have to use force, e.g. break a window, a lock, to gain access?

    I've just re-read your post and you say force was used to steal the keys. I'm flummoxed on how they're rejecting the claim based on no force on the actual vehicle. Force was used to obtain the keys. I mean, what happens if someone breaks into a domestic property, takes some car keys, then the car: surely the insurance pays out on the car? Force was used in the first instance.

    Sorry, but I can't offer any advice other than read your policy booklet very carefully. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will be along shortly.

    Good luck.
  • What they are basically saying is that if someone breaks into your house/office by force and steals the keys to your car and then steals the car using the car keys - then you are NOT covered because they didnt use force to steal the vehicle!

    I have read the policy and it does have an exclusion clause saying you are not covered if you leave the keys in the car - which we didnt do. It also excludes cover if the vehicle was not locked with security devices active - but it was - or if force was not used. I guess they are argueing force wasnt used on the basis that they probably used the car keys they stole but how do they know that they used the car keys, its just a guess and cant be proved? They may not have found the keys until after the car theft?

    In terms of the property insurance the policy only states that the goods must be securely locked in a compound on site - which they were. Our cover also includes insurance for goods in transit on the road so I cant see how they can not cover us, even though they are saying they will not because the keys were used.

    Do I threaten taking it further as it seems they are trying their luck?
  • mattymoo
    mattymoo Posts: 2,417 Forumite
    It sounds like the motor insurer is trying to view the vehicle theft in isolation and incorrectly apply the keys in ignition / lack of force exclusion that most policies now carry.

    Was the key theft a walk in theft where someone helped themselves to the keys that had been left lying around? In that case, there may be problems.

    If it was a break in or violence was used to obtain the keys then that overides the subsequent use of keys to steal the vehicle and the policy should pay out.
  • FlameCloud
    FlameCloud Posts: 1,952 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Thats a strange decision from the insurer and was probably made by some one with little training!

    A decision in the case of Dino vs The Pru (1989 ish) stated that where force and violence has been used in stealing the keys then the unlawful use of those keys itself would count as forcible and violent. Although in this example it was keys being stolen from a car to break into a house however it should act as a precedent.

    How were they keys taken in the first place?
  • magpiecottage
    magpiecottage Posts: 9,241 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Ring them and tell them you are dissatisfied with the decision to disallow the claim since the keys were stolen and force was used to do so. Say you want it referred to their complaints procedure because the refusal is contrary to FSA Principles 6 and 8 (you may not know what they are but I bet they don't either).

    If they say it must be put in writing tell them the FSA "DISP" rules say it doesn't.

    Provided your turnover is less than £1 million you can take them to the Financial Ombudsman Service if they do not sort it.
  • DirectDebacle
    DirectDebacle Posts: 2,045 Forumite
    FlameCloud wrote: »
    Thats a strange decision from the insurer and was probably made by some one with little training!

    A decision in the case of Dino vs The Pru (1989 ish) stated that where force and violence has been used in stealing the keys then the unlawful use of those keys itself would count as forcible and violent. Although in this example it was keys being stolen from a car to break into a house however it should act as a precedent.

    How were they keys taken in the first place?

    I remember a similar ruling but slightly different circumstances. An opportunist burglar randomly trying front door handles found one unlocked. Opened the door, entered the dwelling and stole property. Charged with burglary and defended on the basis the property was insecure and force had not been used. Judge held that force had been used. Burglar had to turn the door handle to open the door. Convicted of burglary.

    If the vehicle had been left locked and secure then by the same argument force was used. It required force to put the keys in the lock and turn them (or push the button on the remote) and it required force to open the door.

    Play them at their own game. Ask them how to open the locked door of your vehicle without touching it.
    Tell them 'magic' doors with an 'Open Sesame' voice command were not fitted to your vehicle.
  • property.advert
    property.advert Posts: 4,086 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    You may also decide to avail yourself of the clauses in your policies pertaining to consequential losses as this is exactly what you have here. You can also discuss apportionment as it is likely this will come into play.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.