Contents insurance claim declined

Hussaa

Hi all,

We were burgled in December 14. There was no forced or malicious entry but we think they came into the porch door.

My wife and I are 100% certain that all the doors and windows were closed. The porch was closed and hadn't been opened for several weeks as it goes out onto our garden and being cold we hadn't been out there since October.

Anyway we have had a loss adjuster assigned to us in Jan 15 and have been liaising since then, they came to the house and provided evidence of the stolen items as requested. Anyway today after nearly 6 months since the claim we received written confirmation that our claim had been declined - they consider that as there was no malicious or forced entry that we left the porch door open.

I am looking for some help and would welcome your thoughts on the following;

1. Is there a minimum time to decline the claim? It doesn't feel right that if they would decline it now for that reason when they could have done so in Jan.
2. If there is no requirement within the policy that forced or malicious entry is needed then can I use this as part of my argument?
3, The declination is on an assumption (as you could argue it is in our case) is that sufficient to decline a claim?
4. If anyone has been in a similar situation and what was your approach?
5. Anything else that could help.

Sorry for the length of the message and thanks in advance for your guidance.

dacouch

Who are you insured with?

Does your policy have any requirement for theft claims unless there are signs of a violent or forcible entry?

Does your policy have any security requirements eg mortice dead locks?

Could you type up the exact wording of the part of the letter from the insurer declining your claim.

Is there anything else we need to know about eg have you claimed a large amount and / or for a large amount of jewellery / cash?

The more information you can give, the better the quality of the advice we can give you

rs65

What was the police's opinion?

Hussaa

Thanks. Answers to the points you raised.

1. Hastings Direct
2. No requirement for sign for violent of forced entry.
3. Yes there is a minimum security requirements

4. Text from the letter;


You have advised that entry by the thief was gained via the rear French door, however, there are no signs of damage to the door. Under your policy the following endorsement is applicable:



E01

Minimum Security Requirements



If You suffer a loss and You do not have the security protections shown below



1. Fitted to the Home, and



2. Put into full and effective operation:-

when You and Your Family have gone to bed, and whenever the Home is left unattended.

Then We will not pay any claim for theft, attempted theft, malicious damage or vandalism at Your Home.

Security Protections
1

The door used as the final exit from the Home is to be fitted with a suitable lock complying with British Standard 3621, or a mortice deadlock of at least 5 levers, or a key operated multi point deadlocking mechanism comprising of at least 3 locking points.



2

All other external doors are to be secured in a similar manner as described in 1 above, or fitted top and bottom with mortice or surface mounted bolts with detachable keys.



3

All ground floor and accessible windows to be fitted with key operated window locks with detachable keys.



4

Sliding patio doors to be fitted with key operated security locks top and bottom with detachable keys or the manufacturers’ key operated integral multi point locking system.

5

Locks or padlocks fitted to all doors of domestic garages and outbuildings.

6

Keys must be removed from locks.



It concerns us that there is no evidence of any force or violence used to gain entry to your home. In our experience, in order for entry to have been gained to a locked and secured property, there would be physical evidence of this. The absence of any evidence of entry leaves us to conclude that the door was not locked. On the basis of the above endorsement it states that all locks must be put into full and effective operation when you are not at the property, if this is not complied with then we will not pay any claim for theft, attempted theft, malicious damage or vandalism at your home. Therefore on this occasion we are unable to be of financial assistance.

5. The took watches and ring which were in the master bedroom - no other rooms were touched. The value was high approx £14k

Thank

Hussaa

The police stated they weren't sure on how entry was gained but it was through the porch door

dacouch

Do you have any Euro Locks (Yale type lock) especially on the french door?

bbk87

Loss adjustor is basically saying that if the endorsement was being adhered to IE the correct type of locks on the doors, and they were indeed all locked, that there would be physical signs of damage to gain entry.

They are saying that as there was no physical signs of entry, that the endorsement couldn't have been adhered to.

You could complain to your insurer, but I suspect they will look at the reports and stick with the decision of the loss adjustor, unless you can provide something that says otherwise.

dacouch

Is there a reason you have the security lock requirement eg are you in a high crime risk area eg a city or do you (As I suspect) have a high contents sum insured?

Did the police mention there are any other similar thefts in your area as criminals tend to use the same methods.

By any chance had any of your family lost their keys recently or had you recently moved into the house and not changed the locks or had tradesmen in who had a key?

Quentin

What reason did you get that endorsement on your policy?

Hussaa

The minimum security requirement appears to be standard for a number of insurance companies - well at least I think it is.

The porch door has a ERA cylinder lock.

Quentin

Hussaa wrote: »

The minimum security requirement appears to be standard for a number of insurance companies - well at least I think it is.

The porch door has a ERA cylinder lock.

The security endorsement you have means you don't have a "standard" policy. (Were it the standard then it would be incorporated in the policy.)


Was there no reason given as to why this was applied?