Out of house contents insurance claim rejected.

TP72

Hello

I've had a bag stolen out of my car and the insurance company are refusing to pay because the bag wasn't locked in the glove box or locked in the boot.

My argument with the insurance company is that firstly the bag wouldn't fit in the glove box and secondly I have a hatchback car and the parcel shelf wasn't in the car due to the fact that I was on holiday and my luggage wouldn't fit in the boot with the parcel shelf in so I'd left it at home. When I was out on the day of the theft I'd parked and popped into the local town to get a few things for a day on the beach. The boot was empty so I didn't want to leave a bag in the boot on display so I'd put the bag in the rear driver side footwell and covered it with a towel as I thought it would be less conspicuous than a bulge under a towel in the boot.

They're saying that it should have been in a locked boot covered up.

Anyone else had a problem like this?

TP

comeandgo

Not had a problem but I believe its standard insurance procedure. I know my work car insurance does not cover any items not in a locked boot out of site. Check your policy.

McKneff

Silly question but why didn't you take your handbag with you?
if you were going shopping.

TP72

McKneff wrote: »

Silly question but why didn't you take your handbag with you?
if you were going shopping.

It wasn't a handbag, it was a camera bag.

TP72

comeandgo wrote: »

Not had a problem but I believe its standard insurance procedure. I know my work car insurance does not cover any items not in a locked boot out of site. Check your policy.

My policy says in a locked boot and out of site, my problem is the shelf wasn't on so there wasn't a boot to lock it in so to speak.

rs65

TP72 wrote: »

My policy says in a locked boot and out of site, my problem is the shelf wasn't on so there wasn't a boot to lock it in so to speak.

You should've taken it with you, particularly as something like a camera bag.

Locked boot or glove box is a fairly standard requirement.

Don't fancy your chances I'm afraid.

geri1965_2

Whose fault is it that the parcel shelf wasn't in the car?

TP72

rs65 wrote: »

You should've taken it with you, particularly as something like a camera bag.

Locked boot or glove box is a fairly standard requirement.

Don't fancy your chances I'm afraid.

Yep, I know I should have taken it with me. But it's a big bag and I had to carry the one child with me.

TP72

geri1965 wrote: »

Whose fault is it that the parcel shelf wasn't in the car?

It was my fault the parcel shelf wasn't in the car, the only reason it wasn't on is because the boot wouldn't shut with the luggage in and there was no room for it anywhere else so it was left at home.

I wonder what Insurance company's do when items are stolen from a people carrier with no boot? And you can't be expected to carry everything when your leaving a car.

I'll just wait to see what the underwriters say. Then I'll go to the financial ombudsman. See if they can help.

BartSimpson_2

Have you got a link to the policy? If it's expressly written in the policy, and tbh this exclusion usually is then you won't have a leg to stand on.

Insurance company will simply point to the requirement. The fact you had taken the parcel shelf off due to luggage constraints is of no concern to them. That was your problem to deal with at the time. They require it locked away and out of sight so that you are mitigating against your loss (ie. taking the necessary precautions).

Something kept under a towel in the rear footwell clearly looks conspicuous enough as it enticed a thief to break into your car and see what it was! Hence the reason why insurance doesn't cover such events. If it's in a locked boot and out of sight or in a locked glove box and out of sight then a thief would simply be breaking into the car either to steal it or on the off chance that there may be something in there. This is a much less likely scenario.

TSx

First off, apologies for the long post - didn't intend it to turn into an essay!

I used to deal with household claims (and still have regular dealings with them) along with handling complaints and issuing final decisions and this is standard on pretty much every policy I've seen, although there are minor variations in the wording. Ideally we need to know what the exclusion says.

You talk about taking it to the ombudsman - luckily, we have access to some of their previous decisions, so we can take an educated guess at what they'd say.

There are two case studies on the ombudsmans website relating to this situation. 35/5 and 35/6.

35/5 relates to theft of a bag from the front seat of the car. It was covered with a coat, and the ombudsman rejected the complaint on the basis it could have easily been left in the boot. They also concluded that putting a coat over it indicates that there is something there which may be worth stealing.

FOS wrote:

The policy exclusion had been very clearly stated and it was evident that the bag had not been left in a "secure concealed compartment". The handbag could easily have been left in the boot. Even though the bag had been covered with a coat, it would have been obvious to an opportunistic thief that the coat could be hiding something worth stealing. We decided the firm acted reasonably in turning down this claim and we rejected the complaint.

35/6 relates to theft of some sunglasses from the door pocket of the car. The ombudsman upheld the complaint on the basis that they would not have been visible when the car was broken into and the door pocket was effectively the same as the glove box or boot. They accepted that there was a strict exclusion but felt as it could have happened regardless, they would uphold the complaint.

FOS wrote:

We considered that, strictly speaking, Mrs M’s claim fell foul of the exclusion clause. However, we felt the firm’s decision was less than fair and reasonable because the sunglasses had effectively been concealed from view. They would not have been visible to a passing thief and the door pocket was, in many ways, similar to a glove compartment. This thief just happened to strike lucky when he broke into the car. We therefore decided that the firm should pay the claim.

There are also several, more recent cases which have been published

Decision DRN7407196 - the wording on their exclusion was slightly different but said the items have to be concealed. The items were stolen from a locked boot, but AXA argued that as the windows were see through, the golf equipment was not sufficiently concealed.

The complaint was upheld on the basis AXA couldn't prove that the items were not concealed. The windows were tinted, and they didn't have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the golf equipment could have been easily seen.

The recurring theme in these decisions (and one's I've dealt with in the past) is that if the items are still effectively concealed, it doesn't matter where in the car they were stolen from.

Could you have just taken the camera out and put it in the glove box? Where was the point of entry in the vehicle? As pointed out above, I would expect most car thieves would consider a towel in the footwell to be potentially hiding something wouldn't therefore consider it concealed.

You also seem to be quite insistent that the insurance company are in the wrong, but the policy does have clear terms and conditions. Part of your policy will say that you must take reasonable care to prevent any loss or damage. How often are we advised by the police to take valuables with us when you park your car? If it was a camera bag, you could have just taken it with you.

In short, I'd be very surprised if the ombudsman upheld a complaint, although if you've threatened to go to the FOS, there is a small chance that your insurers complaints department will change their decision. It is then up to you to take it to the FOS, if you still feel you've been treated unfairly, although don't expect them to resolve it in 2013!