Home Insurance: Force AND Violent Entry

facade

Just had my home insurance renewal. The latest attempt to wriggle out of paying anything is to modify the theft clauses, so that any theft claim now requires the use of force and violence. (As opposed to last year when it was force or violence.)

As far as I can google, violence against an inanimate object constitutes using it in a manner other than would be normal.
So jemmying the door open is both forced and violent entry. (with obvious proof in the damage caused)

Using a key is not violent, nor is opening an unlocked door, but are they "forced" as I would not have invited them in/entry was without permission)?

Picking the lock is both, as the lock has been forced to unlock, by operating it in an manner other than normal=violence. (But there is no physical proof, without a microscope to the works of the lock)

So what are they playing at? How can forced entry be non-violent?
Is it a way to wheedle out of paying if a door is insecure?- but they have exclusions specifically about that....

I would ring the insurer, but I have to pay to be on hold for 20 minutes in the week

Any insurance experts?

stockton_2

facade wrote: »

Using a key is not violent, nor is opening an unlocked door, but are they "forced" as I would not have invited them in/entry was without permission)?

Any insurance experts?

Sorry, no expert but:

If you left your car door unlocked and someone jumped in and drove it away the insurance might not pay out. Probably the same if you let your house door unlocked. That is not a risk they undertake.

Using a key though, is a different matter (I think). I cannot believe you would not be covered if someone (a stranger) broke in to your house using a master key. If they used one of your own house keys that you put under the mat then that would be different.

If all they do is look for exclusions and ways of avoiding paying out then there is no point in insurance. But it seems reasonable to expect people to lock their doors when out and not to leave a house key were it can be discovered.

agrinnall

I'd just find a different insurer who doesn't have that wording in their policy.

Weighty1

stockton wrote: »

Sorry, no expert but:

If you left your car door unlocked and someone jumped in and drove it away the insurance might not pay out. Probably the same if you let your house door unlocked. That is not a risk they undertake.

Using a key though, is a different matter (I think). I cannot believe you would not be covered if someone (a stranger) broke in to your house using a master key. If they used one of your own house keys that you put under the mat then that would be different.

If all they do is look for exclusions and ways of avoiding paying out then there is no point in insurance. But it seems reasonable to expect people to lock their doors when out and not to leave a house key were it can be discovered.

Several years ago I forgot to lock my front door one night. That night, the local druggie broke in, took my laptop, 2 phones and a camera.

Aviva were absolutely brilliant in this situation and fully paid out for our loss, even though the door was unlocked.

It's something I've certainly never done again and caused many restless nights thinking about some random scumbag rifling through my possessions.

facade

agrinnall wrote: »

I'd just find a different insurer who doesn't have that wording in their policy.

I suspect loads will.

The real question is how far can they wheedle? There is already a clause about not paying out if there is even so much as an unlocked window.

FutureGirl

If you left your backdoor unlocked, and they came in and stole items, that it classed as force as they've had to use some force to open the door.

It doesn't mean force as in forcing something open. It means force as in energy.

EdGasket

agrinnall wrote: »

I'd just find a different insurer who doesn't have that wording in their policy.

...and one that will answer the phone too!