Son's laptop lifted out of a window and insurance refused to pay out

aym280

Son's computer lifted out of a ground floor window on a hot day 2 days after moving into another university accommodation.

Son was moved at 6pm on 3 June 2015. He opened the window to air the place as it had been vacant for a while and it smelt. On 5 June which was a hot day 27 degree C, he found his computer was stolen via a window gap which, unbeknown to him, was entended wider by a burglar and here we go the same saga of violent and forced entry came into pay. Even the police said there was a burglary. The forensic team found finger prints but we still don't know whose. There were two other students in the flat.

Why are these policies deliberately phrased to get out of paying. It's alright for them to take money. I post the full response from compuCover.



- CompuCover <***@compucover.co.uk>

16:28 (16 hours ago)

to me


Dear ***


I have looked in to your claim and the subsequent complaint and unfortunately I am not able to resolve this to your satisfaction.

Firstly I would like to point out that your policy is underwritten by Lloyd’s Syndicate 5820 which is managed by ANV Syndicates Limited, whereas the policy wording that you have located on our website is underwritten by UK General Insurance Ltd on behalf of Ageas Insurance Limited. These two policies are different and will have different exclusions. However as you policy has only ever been with Lloyds, it is the wording that was in place when the policy was incepted and which were emailed to you 21/10/2014 at 14:23 that this claim is validated against.

The policy that you hold with us provides cover for accidental damage and theft, however as with all insurance policies there are exclusions to this. In this case the policy provides cover for theft and accidental damage. While burglaries will be considered under the theft element of this policy, your definition of burglary that you have supplied does not take precedent over the policy wording through with items are covered. Theft from any premises is considered in conjunction with the following policy extracts -
Theft from unoccupied premises unless there is evidence of violent and forcible entry to such premises. A copy of the repairer’s account for the damage to the premises must be submitted with any claim.
Unfortunately in this case while we accept that this theft is genuine and that as you say there is no attempt being made by you to defraud us the circumstances of this incident are not covered by this policy and as such we are unable to pay any part of this claim.
You have noted below that you wish us to liaise with Endsleigh Insurance in order to split the costs. This is not something that we will be able to do for the above reasons and would suggest that you contact your alternative insurance provider and inform them that if your claim with them approved then then they will need to settle the costs in full and not to expect any contribution from us.

Should you remain dissatisfied, you may if you wish, refer your complaint to Lloyd's, who will investigate and assess this complaint. Lloyd's contact details are as follows:

Complaints Team
Market Services
Lloyd’s
One Lime Street
London
EC3M 7HA

Email: [EMAIL="complaints&#64;lloyds.com"]complaints@lloyds.com[/EMAIL]

HELP please as this laptop is a very expensive cult tool, vital to my son's finishing the degree.

TO ALL PARENTS with teens going to university: stick a poster on the door : HAVE YOU LOCKED ALL WINDOWS?

THE INSURERS ARE HERE TO MAKE MONEY, not to protect you!

dacouch

What is the exact wording of the policy you have?

Does it say "Violent AND Forcible" or does it say "Violent OR Forcible"

Is the lap top not covered by your own Home Insurance, most will cover your children's contents whilst at uni and their terms tend to be less strict

FutureGirl

Not all insurers have the force and violence clause for theft. You should be checking your policy documents for the policy you have decided to pay for.

There are quite a few home insurance policies that only have that if money is stole.

keith1950

Surely it is up to the owner of the laptop to take " reasonable " care of it. Leaving it near an open window is not responsible.

Yes, a burglary has taken place but he appears to have make things very easy for the burglar.

I would not even leave a laptop on display even in totally secure premises, why give a burglar cause to attempt a theft.

I hope he has learnt a valuable lesson from this episode and best of luck with the claim.

dunstonh

Why are these policies deliberately phrased to get out of paying. It's alright for them to take money.

It is not an uncommon clause in student accommodation insurance to require forced and/or violent entry to exist. It exists largely because of the number of try-it-on claims where things go missing without any evidence and where there may be high human traffic who could pick up and remove anything on their visits. Students are high risk. So, what do you do with high risk coverage? You either restrict the coverage or you increase the cost to cover it.

Its not that they are trying to get out of paying. If they wanted to offer cover on it they would but the premium would be much higher. There are policies that will cover it without forcible entry but this is why you research what you buy and decide what you want covered and how much it will cost. And not focus only on price.

THE INSURERS ARE HERE TO MAKE MONEY, not to protect you!

Correct. They are commercial. Not charities. However, you also have to take some responsibility here too. You chose to have a policy that had that clause. You could have chosen a policy that did not have that clause. It would likely cost you more.

dauphin

The "violent and forcible" exclusion which has been quoted appears only to relate to "unoccupied" premises. I wonder whether the term "unoccupied" is defined in the policy - I suspect not.
In the absence of any definition, is it not at least arguable that "unoccupied" means that nobody was living in the premises; not merely that they had gone out for a while? Any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the Insured, so this is the line I would be taking.

Having said that, I would not be surprised if, as keith1950 has alluded to, the OP's son may have been in breach of one of the conditions of the policy by failing to take reasonable precautions to protect the laptop from theft.