Are Capital One Lying to me?

thebigloss15

Hi all. This is my first post on this forum and thanks in advance to anyone that can offer me any assistance.

Last week I was outside of the UK when my phone was stolen from me. I reported it to the police immediately and have all of the relevant documents.

Having read the insurance policy from Capital One i'm sure that I am covered against theft whilst abroad. However, they say that I am only covered against theft while in the UK.

To me the document clearly states that "We want you to have that extra peace of mind when using your Capital One® credit card and this free insurance should give you that, by covering many of the things you buy against loss, damage or theft for 100 days after purchase."

From the above it is clear that the theft, loss and damage are separate things. When i spoke to them on the phone they quoted one of the exclusions which is "We will not pay benefit for loss or damage resulting from... loss or damage outside the UK".

In the same document they define "Loss or damage - The direct physical loss or damage to the insured property in the UK" but they fail to define theft even though theft is clearly mentioned in the introduction. At no point in the document do they say that theft from outside of the UK is not covered.

Now... thanks if you have got this far! Basically has anyone been victim of this before? Am I barking up the wrong tree here? I've demanded a claim form which I will submit at the same time as a complaint form but i'm sure they are either lying to me or they have failed to correctly say that i'm not covered.

Any help will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

meer53

"We will not pay benefit for loss or damage resulting from... loss or damage outside the UK".

Which bit of this is confusing you ? Seems clear to me.

Glennn

meer53 wrote: »

"We will not pay benefit for loss or damage resulting from... loss or damage outside the UK".

Which bit of this is confusing you ? Seems clear to me.

Because in the introduction it states loss and theft as different things.

I can't help much but I don't think they would lie as such. Do you have a crime reference? In Cap Ones eyes it may be classed as loss if you haven't reported it stolen.

Ahhh just seen you have reported it......

Enfieldian

If it was stolen from you then you have now lost ownership of it.

sharpy2010

Enfieldian wrote: »

If it was stolen from you then you have now lost ownership of it.

I don't think thats what the contract is referring to. At best the wording is a bit weak. Loss is something that happens when you lose something. If someone has stolen something from you, you didn't lose it, it was taken forcefully. This is not the same thing.

The OP could contest this under contract law since theft is not adequately defined in the contract.

But it might cost a lot of money to do so, and is it worth it?

callum9999

I agree with Sharpy - and the people mocking the OP are being ridiculous. The policy specifically separates the events of loss, theft and damage, then specifically says loss or damage isn't covered outside the UK.

While I highly doubt it was deliberate, and that Capital One are now lying, the wording (if that is the exact wording and it isn't clarified elsewhere) isn't fit for purpose.

dalesrider

thebigloss15 wrote: »

Hi all. This is my first post on this forum and thanks in advance to anyone that can offer me any assistance.

To me the document clearly states that "We want you to have that extra peace of mind when using your Capital One® credit card and this free insurance should give you that, by covering many of the things you buy against loss, damage or theft for 100 days after purchase."

Any help will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

So was the phone bought on the credit card, less than 100 days ago. And is a mobile phone "One of the many things ????" that are covered ?
I take it that there is a list of either covered or not covered products. In the docs you will have been sent.

7. What are the significant or unusual exclusions and limitations of this policy?


Purchase Protection Exclusions:



As with most insurance policies exclusions and limitations apply – the list



provided is not exhaustive, but highlights exclusions and limitations which may be



considered significant. Claims will not be paid for:


Theft, malicious damage or anything similar causing the loss or damage of the


insured property unless it is reported to the police within 24 hours of you discovering



the loss or damage;

Loss or damage of items purchased outside of the UK;


Loss or damage of items purchased which happens more than 100 days after


the date of purchase (either the date on the store receipt or the date on the



card statement, whichever is earliest).

If you read the docs on the capital website.
Section 3A covers

SECTION 3 - Exclusions

A. Purchase Protection exclusionsWe will not pay benefit for loss or damage resulting from:

the taking apart, maintaining, cleaning, restoring, dyeing or repairing of



the insured property;

loss or damage which happens more than 100 days after the date of purchase


(either the date on the store receipt or the date on the

card statement,


whichever is earliest);

loss or damage outside the UK;

thebigloss15

Thanks for all of the replies. I agree with Sharpy on this and it was the wording of the contract that got me. Now as I see it they can't say i'm not covered for something lost or damaged outside the UK but fail to say that i'm not covered for theft outside of the UK. I've gone through all of the exclusions and I do not fit into any of them. However, they fail to explicitly say that theft from outside the UK is not covered. This, I believe, would lead a reasonable person to believe that they were covered for theft that occurred outside the UK for a period of 100 days.

When I spoke to them on the phone the constantly repeated the mantra "you are not covered for items lost or damaged outside of the UK" and that is all that they had. What struck me is they very much expected me to roll over and agree with them. The line they are using doesn't even mention things that are stolen!

Anyway, i'm going to submit my claim and a complaint form at the same time. I'll pull out the old watchdog card and see where it gets me!

Thanks again!

sefton

Enfieldian wrote: »

If it was stolen from you then you have now lost ownership of it.

I think you are joking. The problem with insurance is they will refuse payment and use strict wording as their excuse. In this case it clearly is going against them. I have no doubt they meant to say it would not be covered for theft outside of the UK but someone messed up the proofing and they didn't say that it would not be covered for theft whilst out of the UK

pompeyred

I have no doubt they meant to say it would not be covered for theft outside of the UK but someone messed up the proofing and they didn't say that it would not be covered for theft whilst out of the UK

Interesting legal argument - you believe the insurer would be covered under a 'lack of proof reading'.....?

You can only consider the facts as they are presented - if they are not presented or can not be interpreted for consideration then, simply, they are not included in the contract. I think it would be reasonable for the OP to raise a claim and fight it all the way.

tricklesthegreek

Argue it with the ombudsman for insurance services. They will soon advise you if you have got a case or not. The ombudsman worked with us when we claimed for a burglary under our house insurance because the loss adjuster tried to make out we had £3000 of high risk contents. When we got a second opinion they mistakenly wrote in all of the CDs which I have had since I was 16 - the LA assumed they were all brand new (yeah, 300 of them, because I have nothing better to spend my money on) and didn't bother to ask that I had been accruing them over the last 15 years. Subsequently our claim was doubled to pay out what we were due. Insurance companies will always try to get away with not paying out - the exception I note to that is pet insurance. Try the FSA and see what they say - if they say no you aren't covered then it's up to you if you wanted to seek further advice from a lawyer specialising in this subject. If they say actually the wording is poor then the FSA will have some push to get them to do the right thing. Good luck anyhow x