Insurance company trying not to pay out!!

LilBec

Ok so quick summary of the situation.
We were burgled recently, entry forced to the property via the back door. And in the course of the burglary my car keys, then car itself, were stolen. There is a full Police report confirming that it was reported promptly and investigated, crime ref number etc.
The car has since been recovered, torched.
Car insurance company no probs at all, valued fairly and paid out (AXA by the way, very good and very helpful!) in good time. However the policy did not cover personal possessions within the vehicle, so I was referred to my home insurance company.
I have additional cover for possessions outside the home, and having referred to my policy terms and conditions in relation to theft from vehicle have found the following which states that this is only covered if:
"at the time of the loss or damage: someone aged 16 or over was in the motor vehicle OR the motor vehicle was securely locked; AND force and violence were used to get into the motor vehicle; AND the items stolen were out of sight in a locked luggage boot, luggage or glove compartment."

My argument is that the car was left securely locked, and force/violence was used to obtain the keys. Plus the items were out of sight and secured. So i am struggling to see why i am not covered. However they simply keep stating that I am not.

Any thoughts or advice from anyone? Or how I might take this further? I have never claimed on a policy, but I am aware insurance companies can be notoriously difficult, but I am hoping there will be some success stories out there as to how people have resolved such issues.

Thanks in advance

spacey2012

They exempt any car where the seats can be folded down from the inside as constituting a Locked boot.
So get ready for that one next.

vaio

Put a complaint in and if they still don't play ball then refer it to the FOS

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Put a complaint in and if they still don't play ball then refer it to the FOS

The claim is not covered by the policy so no payment is due however this is exactly the type of claim the Ombudsman may feel that it's fair that the Insurer pays out as the original claim involved force.

Follow Vaio's advice and if need be (Very very likely) you will need to go to the Ombudsman, be aware that the Ombudsman takes a long time to give a decision.

It would be really helpful to other people in a similar position if you could come back and update the thread with the ultimate result

rs65

I agree with Vaio and dacouch.

Technically not covered but should be paid in the spirit of the cover.

The only caveat I would have is the value of the loss. If it is thousands then you will have a bigger argument. If its a modest amount left in your car then it will be easier.

magpiecottage

An interesting case.

However, from what the OP says, there is an ambiguity in the policy wording. It says "the motor vehicle was securely locked; AND force and violence were used to get into the motor vehicle" not that entry to the vehicle must have been forcible.

A firm I work for had a client whose claim was rejected on the basis of an exclusion which was poorly drafted a couple of years back. They asked me for an opinion and I said their client should go to FOS because
I thought the claim was valid.


FOS decided that the contract was ambibuous and that it was correct to follow the legal principle that such an ambiguity is interpreted against the party that wrote it.

On that basis, I am (unusually) going to disagree with DACouch. I agree that they indended it not to be covered but I think the way they have drafted the contract means that is.

I also agree that the OP is probably in for a long wait although they will probably get interest and possibly a modest award for distress and inconvenience.

vaio

LilBec wrote: »

........I have additional cover for possessions outside the home, and having referred to my policy terms and conditions in relation to theft from vehicle have found the following which states that this is only covered if:
"at the time of the loss or damage: someone aged 16 or over was in the motor vehicle OR the motor vehicle was securely locked; AND force and violence were used to get into the motor vehicle; AND the items stolen were out of sight in a locked luggage boot, luggage or glove compartment."

My argument is that the car was left securely locked, and force/violence was used to obtain the keys. Plus the items were out of sight and secured. .....

I'd do a three pronged non exclusive complaint

1. General fairness

and/or

2. The vehicle was locked and force and violence was used to gain access to the car abet via getting access to the keys. As magpiecottage points out, the policy wording requires that F&V was used to get into the car and not that actual entry to the car was F&V. In my mind it matters not whether a car window was broken to gain access to the contents or a house window was broken which then gave access to the keys and thus to the car contents.

and/or (slightly more tenuous but maybe worth considering as it removes the need for F&V etc)

3. On balance of probabilities there was someone over the age of 16 in the car at the time of the loss. The thief or thieves were there. In the absence of individual offender details then Crime Stats like http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hors/hors130.pdf report that 90% of car thieves are aged 16 and up.

.

InsideInsurance

In the first instance you need to find the exact reason why your insurers have declined the claim.

I think most here are assuming its because there was no forced entry to the vehicle itself but Spacey as usual is going off on their own about it possibly being about you having folding seats.

Assuming that it is an issue over forced entry then raise a complaint and provide the evidence of the forced entry, ie to the home, as the wording does not explicitly state that the force must have been applied to the vehicle itself.

Spikey1

Hi there,

With Insce claims depts. the trick is to get past the frontline handling clerks who are very often young, inexperienced and unqualified. The lack of professional qualifications in younger staff is a huge problem in insurance and is being addressed.

If you do choose to complain, the escalation process will take you to a more experienced supervisor. I'd be very surprised if they allowed this to go to the Ombudsman and I'm sure they would honour the claim without much ado.

Can I ask where the car was when it was stolen.....the inferences are that it was NOT in your garage or driveway..perhaps on the street outside ? The precise location of the car could make a difference to the policy section you can claim from. If it was on the drive or in the garage you may be able to claim from the standard Contents section and avoid the hassle you are having here under the Personal Possessions section.

spacey2012

No Spacey is pointing out what they will come back with if he jumps this hurdle.
Where the seats fold down, they do not regard this as a lockable luggage space.
As the OP is claiming for items stolen from the locked luggage space, I though I would point out what to expect next from them.

cajef

spacey2012 wrote: »

As the OP is claiming for items stolen from the locked luggage space, I though I would point out what to expect next from them.

As usual spouting rubbish opinions without facts to back them up, I never had a problem or any quibbles with my insurance paying out when my estate car was broken into and the luggage cover was folded back to get at the stuff in the rear which was stolen.