Home insurance and lock boxes

Aretnap

mjm3346 said:

A "lockbox" is not much better than leaving a spare key under a doormat  - no need for a policy to spell that out as an exclusion. 

You obviously have some strange ideas about how insurance contracts work...

If the policy says it will cover burglary then it will convert burglary UNLESS a further clause says that it will not cover burglary under these particular conditions.

The fact that you think the OP did something a bit silly is not a valid ground in itself for refusing to pay a claim.

mjm3346

mjm3346 said:

A "lockbox" is not much better than leaving a spare key under a doormat  - no need for a policy to spell that out as an exclusion. 

Obviously not been clear enough - A policy does not need to say you will not be covered for leaving a key under a mat and a lockbox is not much better than leaving key under a mat

Aretnap

mjm3346 said:

mjm3346 said:

A "lockbox" is not much better than leaving a spare key under a doormat  - no need for a policy to spell that out as an exclusion. 

Obviously not been clear enough - A policy does not need to say you will not be covered for leaving a key under a mat...

It very much does. It may not have to spelt out in quite so many words but there absolutely must be an exclusion that covered the situation if an insurer wanted to deny a claim because you'd left a key under a mat.

The most obvious exclusion that might apply would be one that said burglary would only be covered if force or violence was used to enter the property. However not all home policies have such an exclusion, and if they did then using force or violence to break open a lock box is obviously a completely different scenario from finding a key under a mat. 

The other exclusion which might at a push exclude burglary when a key is left under a mat is a catch-all "you must take reasonable care of your property" clause. However both the Ombudsman and the courts, quite rightly, don't like insurance companies using such vaguely worded clauses to deny consumers: claims, and so the level of stupidity that is required before they can be activated is very high indeed.

Perhaps, at a push, an insurer could apply "reasonable care" clause to leaving a not very well hidden key somewhere, though I have my doubts. They would be VERY hard pushed to argue that use of a lock box violated the "reasonable care" clause, given that their use is absolutely standard in many situations, eg rental properties, or to allow eg carers to access a house occupied by a vulnerable resident.

Migsy999

A lot of valid comments re the lock box. 

I would’ve thought there would be a clause. 

I also had quite a long chat with the insurance company when I got that policy. 

There’s plenty of stringent measures for unoccupied insurance.  

Heating must stay on so pipes don’t freeze for example. 

There’s no mention of a box of any sort. It makes no difference if it’s approved or not which it is. 

There’s just no mention so I don’t know how any refusal has any legal basis to argue. 

It’s forced entry. Just because it’s not a window or a door it’s still a part of my house that’s been forced open. 

Other spare keys for the whole house were also inside a kitchen drawer which were stolen so again no difference. They got the keys by breaking into my property full stop behind a gate at rear. 

Of course now I’ve had every lock changed at huge cost. 

My worry is the 25k damage done inside that I really think they’ll try and dodge with this lockbox issue. 

I’ve read through all the fine print so I’m not sure how it will play out but they won’t be happy paying because nobody has thrown a brick through my window. 

I appreciate all answers and POVs but I was hoping for first hand experience. We can argue all day about whether it was stupid or not but I had little choice in the end. If you’re 400 miles away you never know who needs access.  

user1977

Why are you so convinced that "they won't be happy paying"? People here have got better experience than you on how insurance claims work (if not exactly on point) and aren't saying it's a problem.

Aretnap

Aretnap said:

Does your policy actually have a clause saying that burglary will only be covered if there is evidence of forced and violent entry, or similar?

If not, you are worrying about nothing. 

If so, what EXACTLY does it say?

Could you perhaps tell us what the policy actually says about this situation, rather than getting hung up on clauses about frozen pipes, or soeculating about what emotions a corporation might feel about its expenditure?

First hand experience would have no relevance unless it was from someone who has the same insurer with a policy which has the same terms as yours - at the moment nobody knows what those are.

Migsy999

There’s too much to quote here but the general gist is that it’s forced or violent entry. Which it is in my opinion.  

My experience with insurance companies is with cars mostly. 

I’ve never had to deal with a high priced burglary. 

For cars they will want the cheapest quote from the worst mechanic or body shop. 

They will write your car off if it’s cheaper than fixing it leaving you with a book price which isn’t what the car is worth. 

I’ve never had good experiences with any only them. 

Naming the underwriter is pointless as no policy will be the same. 

The real reason I’m worried is when I first called them then posted here, the guy on the phone was more or less telling me it’s going to be difficult and I hadn’t even mentioned that lockbox. 

He was more or less telling me they will be looking at the fine print in detail. It didn’t fill me with confidence. 

Migsy999

Aretnap said:

Aretnap said:

Does your policy actually have a clause saying that burglary will only be covered if there is evidence of forced and violent entry, or similar?

If not, you are worrying about nothing. 

If so, what EXACTLY does it say?

Could you perhaps tell us what the policy actually says about this situation, rather than getting hung up on clauses about frozen pipes, or soeculating about what emotions a corporation might feel about its expenditure?

First hand experience would have no relevance unless it was from someone who has the same insurer with a policy which has the same terms as yours - at the moment nobody knows what those are.

The frozen pipes was an example of the clauses. I’m not hung up on that. My boiler has been on for two months at great cost.  I’m surprised that wasn’t stolen as it’s brand new. 

My point was, I’ve been through it all in detail. 

There’s loads of clauses about how it would be invalidated for every reason under the sun. 

Except a lockbox which I did find curious as it’s pretty thorough on everything else. 

They can’t claim like someone said l, if a key is under a rock or a doormat that it goes without saying. 

A lockbox is a grey area now they will exploit. 

I find it odd everyone Is kinda defending insurance companies as if they are some kind of benevolent charity when I find them them the opposite.   

I hope I come back here in a few days eating humble pie. 

Aretnap

Migsy999 said:

There’s too much to quote here...

I'm pretty sure there will be nothing which would take more time to type out than those last two posts, even if for some reason you can't just cut and paste it. 

But if you'd rather write long complaints about how insurance companies are all crooks who are out to get you instead of information which might actually help people offer you advice, there's little we can do to help except wish you good luck.

TELLIT01

It will probably come down to the insurers interpretation of "Forced entry to the property".  Breaking an external box containing a key, which then provides easy unforced entry, may or may not be covered.  Only the insurer can answer.  If they refuse to pay out the OP can appeal to the insurer and if they still get a negative outcome take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service.