Contents insurance help!

LilyOak

Hi,
Wondering if anyone can help me...
We are insured for theft and loss away from the home on our contents policy. My partner recently had a big accident on a bike trail and was ambulanced with muself away from the scene. Our company are saying the won't pay out do to the fact we didn't have the bike chained to a building... dispite us not being next to any buildings and the fact we were being packed into an ambulance at the time! Any advice???

InsideInsurance

What are the terms of the policy? Bikes are normally covered under their own section rather than under the normal personal possessions/ items away from the home.

LilyOak

Hi,
Thanks for replying. They were just named items on the contents and we took the whole policy out with accidental damage, loss and theft away from home.

LilyOak

There is a written clause that says that they must be locked to a building in the policy... but not what to do if there is no building available and you don't have and locks with you if it has to be left in case of an emergancy.

InsideInsurance

LilyOak wrote: »

There is a written clause that says that they must be locked to a building in the policy... but not what to do if there is no building available and you don't have and locks with you if it has to be left in case of an emergancy.

Insurers don't have to tell you what to do if you cannot meet their terms only what their terms are and then its up to you if you want to follow them and be covered or not follow them and not be covered.

Who is the policy with? It sounds an unusual clause to say it has to be locked to a building rather than just a solid immovable object.

At the end of the day you could put in a complaint but you are effectively asking for goodwill because you openly admit to not meeting the requirements for cover.

LilyOak

It's with the AA... The clause sounds like it would be difficult to adhere to in a lot of cases such as this, it a clause is unfair can it still be upheld?

InsideInsurance

The exact wording, in the current policy is:

theft of unattended pedal cycle(s) unless the bicycle is locked in a building or attached by a security device between the cycle frame or back wheel to a permanently fixed structure

And so is not as restrictive as yours post seems to suggest.

I would not agree that the terms are unfair, especially if they are the same as above, at most you may argue they are a little restrictive but then you have a cooling off period to decide if a policy is fit for your needs or not for a reason.

Hopefully your partner has recovered from the accident and this is much more important than the price of any bike

FlameCloud

Was the bike actually stolen, or do you want to claim for the damage following the accident?