Insurance claim for Burglary

[JQ]

A friend (no, really) was broken into over the last couple of days and has asked my advice on the claim, and I've no idea.

His house was burgled 6 months ago, patio door smashed, laptops, phones, iPads, etc taken. Claim made, all sorted. Over the last couple of days his detached garage has been cleaned out (£2,500 worth of bikes and gardening equipment). There are no signs of forced entry to the garage (5 lever mortice lock), so either a key was pinched during the last burglary or a member of his family left the door unlocked. There is every possibility it was left unlocked. The garage is alarmed but has not gone off, so not sure when it happened. May have happened when at home and alarm not set.

The question he has asked - is it worth making a claim?

He's concerned that if he makes a claim and it's rejected (which he thinks is guaranteed) he'll have to declare it on renewal forcing up his premium into perpetuity.

Cheers in advance.

[Snails]

JQ said:

A friend (no, really) was broken into over the last couple of days and has asked my advice on the claim, and I've no idea.

His house was burgled 6 months ago, patio door smashed, laptops, phones, iPads, etc taken. Claim made, all sorted. Over the last couple of days his detached garage has been cleaned out (£2,500 worth of bikes and gardening equipment). There are no signs of forced entry to the garage (5 lever mortice lock), so either a key was pinched during the last burglary or a member of his family left the door unlocked. There is every possibility it was left unlocked. The garage is alarmed but has not gone off, so not sure when it happened. May have happened when at home and alarm not set.

The question he has asked - is it worth making a claim?

He's concerned that if he makes a claim and it's rejected (which he thinks is guaranteed) he'll have to declare it on renewal forcing up his premium into perpetuity.

Cheers in advance.

His claim being rejected relies on too many things to determine if it will or won't based on your description. However, having previously worked in household claims I wouldn't expect it to be declined based on the description.

If his claim was rejected, then it would need to be declared if he moved elsewhere as the insurer would have logged it and it would be uploaded to the claims database that most insurers use. Also, with two theft claims in 1 year he could also find it difficult to move insurers or find a competitive premium as insurers often have underwriting criteria such as "no more than 1 theft claim in a 3 year period".

Something else that is worth considering is the limit on his policy for theft from outbuildings as most insurers will have a sub-limit for this under the contents section. It is also worth considering the limits for pedal cycles as again, lots of policies have limits on pedal cycles, some will even exclude pedal cycles outright unless they are specified. These two limits could significantly reduce the scope of his claim.

[JQ]

Snails said:

His claim being rejected relies on too many things to determine if it will or won't based on your description. However, having previously worked in household claims I wouldn't expect it to be declined based on the description.

If his claim was rejected, then it would need to be declared if he moved elsewhere as the insurer would have logged it and it would be uploaded to the claims database that most insurers use. Also, with two theft claims in 1 year he could also find it difficult to move insurers or find a competitive premium as insurers often have underwriting criteria such as "no more than 1 theft claim in a 3 year period".

Something else that is worth considering is the limit on his policy for theft from outbuildings as most insurers will have a sub-limit for this under the contents section. It is also worth considering the limits for pedal cycles as again, lots of policies have limits on pedal cycles, some will even exclude pedal cycles outright unless they are specified. These two limits could significantly reduce the scope of his claim.

Many thanks for the response. Most of the value is in 2 bikes, which I'm hoping he's declared due to their value, but he's checking his policy.

So you don't think the fact that the garage has potentially left unsecured will hinder the claim?

[Aggymon]

That sounds like an outright rejection to me tbh.

The majority of Policies will have a 'forcible/violent' entry &/or exit requirement for theft claims and what you describe doesn't meet that.

The fact the lock hasn't been changed after being burgled isn't going to help.

Having said that, without all of his Policy documents in front of someone then you won't get a definitive answer other than going to the Insurer with the claim.

ETA; what did the Police say ?

Many years ago my parents garage was burgled, it was only when the Police came round and pointed out a tiny mark near the top of the door that we worked out how they got in as when we went to open it the next day it was all apparently locked up !

Edited by Aggymon on Thursday 27th April 13:58

[Aretnap]

JQ said:

So you don't think the fact that the garage has potentially left unsecured will hinder the claim?

He needs to check the terms of his policy carefully and see whether it includes a clause to the effect that the insurer won't pay theft claims unless the doors were locked and/or there's evidence of forced entry. Some policies do have a clause like that - some don't. If his doesn't then his insurer can't add it retrospectively and decline the claim just because he forgot to lock his garage door one night.

In my own experience most insurers don't have a clause like that as standard - but they may add it as an endorsement to individual policies where they regard the risk of burglary as high, eg where there's been a previous burglary at the address, where the address is in a high crime area, or where the value of the house's contents (especially things like jewellery) is unusually high. So if his policy's renewed since the last burglary there's a high chance that it will have a minimum security clause - if it hasn't then he may be in luck.

He also needs to check whether the security requirements for outbuildings are the same as for the main home.

[Snails]

Aretnap said:

In my own experience most insurers don't have a clause like that as standard - but they may add it as an endorsement to individual policies where they regard the risk of burglary as high, eg where there's been a previous burglary at the address, where the address is in a high crime area, or where the value of the house's contents (especially things like jewellery) is unusually high. So if his policy's renewed since the last burglary there's a high chance that it will have a minimum security clause - if it hasn't then he may be in luck.

He also needs to check whether the security requirements for outbuildings are the same as for the main home.

What both of the two previous posters said is correct, forcible and/or violent entry is a condition on some policies for theft claims, however as Aretnap notes it isn't normally a standard condition and is usually applied as an endorsement to properties that are high risk.

If it is a standard condition it usually only applies to certain items for example "no cover for money unless there is forcible and violent entry"

[JQ]

Many thanks for the help. I'll make sure he checks his policy documents.