Tools insurance not valid over 24hrs, but theft on Day 1?
Discussion
Hi all,
We have a tools insurance policy that states it will not cover vehicles left ungaraged for more than 24hrs. If a company van is left with a workshop for repairs (but unfortunately in car park rather than a secure area) and is broken into 6 hours after being left, is it right that the insurance company is saying that, due to our intention of leaving the van for more than 24 hours, the insurance is invalid? I’m torn on this one, given the incident only happened 6 hours after it was dropped off…
Many thanks!
We have a tools insurance policy that states it will not cover vehicles left ungaraged for more than 24hrs. If a company van is left with a workshop for repairs (but unfortunately in car park rather than a secure area) and is broken into 6 hours after being left, is it right that the insurance company is saying that, due to our intention of leaving the van for more than 24 hours, the insurance is invalid? I’m torn on this one, given the incident only happened 6 hours after it was dropped off…
Many thanks!
Krikkit said:
Why are you involving your insurance at all? Surely this is down to the workshop whos care it was left in to sort out?
Unless the repairer has been negligent - such as leaving the doors open, or the keys in it - it isn't down to them.Insurance company are making up an excuse to get out of paying. The 'intent' to leave it for more than 24 hours isn't relevant to the fact it was broken in to after 6 hours parked.
Al3xWoody said:
Hi all,
We have a tools insurance policy that states it will not cover vehicles left ungaraged for more than 24hrs. If a company van is left with a workshop for repairs (but unfortunately in car park rather than a secure area) and is broken into 6 hours after being left, is it right that the insurance company is saying that, due to our intention of leaving the van for more than 24 hours, the insurance is invalid? I’m torn on this one, given the incident only happened 6 hours after it was dropped off…
Many thanks!
No its not right in what the Insurer is saying.We have a tools insurance policy that states it will not cover vehicles left ungaraged for more than 24hrs. If a company van is left with a workshop for repairs (but unfortunately in car park rather than a secure area) and is broken into 6 hours after being left, is it right that the insurance company is saying that, due to our intention of leaving the van for more than 24 hours, the insurance is invalid? I’m torn on this one, given the incident only happened 6 hours after it was dropped off…
Many thanks!
Your policy allows you 24 hours and how could they know what your intentions were ?
That said and purely out of interest what were your intentions in terms of getting the van back time wise ?
No ideas for a name said:
Krikkit said:
Why are you involving your insurance at all? Surely this is down to the workshop whos care it was left in to sort out?
Unless the repairer has been negligent - such as leaving the doors open, or the keys in it - it isn't down to them.Insurance company are making up an excuse to get out of paying. The 'intent' to leave it for more than 24 hours isn't relevant to the fact it was broken in to after 6 hours parked.
Our intention was to leave the van with the workshop over the weekend, and we found out about the theft on the Monday, despite it happening late on Friday.
Al3xWoody said:
Thanks both. The individual who originally handled this said that the workshop have it in their T+Cs that vehicles are left at your own risk. Interestingly, our fleet insurance (covering the damage to the vehicle) is apparently going to contest this with the garage. My own thought is that once I hand the keys to them, they are parking it at their own risk, not me. Especially if they moved the van to a different area!!
Our intention was to leave the van with the workshop over the weekend, and we found out about the theft on the Monday, despite it happening late on Friday.
If you left the vehicle at the garage and then THEY chose to move it and park it somewhere dodgy, then maybe there is an argument that they have been negligent.Our intention was to leave the van with the workshop over the weekend, and we found out about the theft on the Monday, despite it happening late on Friday.
So had there not been a theft 6 hours after you left it the intention was always to leave it for greater than 24 hours ?
Whilst you didn't necessarily know where the garage would leave it , had the theft occurred say this morning then the Insurer would have been adhering to its own policy terms and conditions and I don't think you would be able to claim.
As such you as the policyholder had a duty of care to adhere to the policy so I can sort of see where the Insurer is coming from.
I am assuming the garage knows for a fact the theft was Friday ?
If its all as you say then I would certainly go back to the Insurer and point out the van had only been left for 6 hours when the theft occurred.
If they then still stick to their guns you can then complain to their complaints dept and only after they have then ruled could you go to the Ombudsman.
Whilst you didn't necessarily know where the garage would leave it , had the theft occurred say this morning then the Insurer would have been adhering to its own policy terms and conditions and I don't think you would be able to claim.
As such you as the policyholder had a duty of care to adhere to the policy so I can sort of see where the Insurer is coming from.
I am assuming the garage knows for a fact the theft was Friday ?
If its all as you say then I would certainly go back to the Insurer and point out the van had only been left for 6 hours when the theft occurred.
If they then still stick to their guns you can then complain to their complaints dept and only after they have then ruled could you go to the Ombudsman.
alscar said:
So had there not been a theft 6 hours after you left it the intention was always to leave it for greater than 24 hours ?
Whilst you didn't necessarily know where the garage would leave it , had the theft occurred say this morning then the Insurer would have been adhering to its own policy terms and conditions and I don't think you would be able to claim.
As such you as the policyholder had a duty of care to adhere to the policy so I can sort of see where the Insurer is coming from.
I am assuming the garage knows for a fact the theft was Friday ?
If its all as you say then I would certainly go back to the Insurer and point out the van had only been left for 6 hours when the theft occurred.
If they then still stick to their guns you can then complain to their complaints dept and only after they have then ruled could you go to the Ombudsman.
I think you’ve summed it up very well and that’s the plan! Whilst you didn't necessarily know where the garage would leave it , had the theft occurred say this morning then the Insurer would have been adhering to its own policy terms and conditions and I don't think you would be able to claim.
As such you as the policyholder had a duty of care to adhere to the policy so I can sort of see where the Insurer is coming from.
I am assuming the garage knows for a fact the theft was Friday ?
If its all as you say then I would certainly go back to the Insurer and point out the van had only been left for 6 hours when the theft occurred.
If they then still stick to their guns you can then complain to their complaints dept and only after they have then ruled could you go to the Ombudsman.
What does the clause in the policy say exactly? I suspect your first post gives your understanding of it, but we need the exact wording to give any useful comment here. Otherwise we are just giving personal opinion as to what feels appropriate for an insurance policy to cover, which is irrelevant to the issue.
MrBen.911 said:
What does the clause in the policy say exactly? I suspect your first post gives your understanding of it, but we need the exact wording to give any useful comment here. Otherwise we are just giving personal opinion as to what feels appropriate for an insurance policy to cover, which is irrelevant to the issue.
“Not covered for any claim… which was left at any location other than the address shown in the schedule or address of any employee for any period exceeding 24 consecutive hours”Interesting, I would argue that the clause is ambiguous - it's unclear if the person writing the clause was saying:
- It is not covered if the vehicle has been in such location for more than 24 hours at the time of the theft
- It is not covered if the vehicle was intended to be in such location for more than 24 hours, regardless whether the theft happened before or after that 24 hours had expired
Generally where a clause if unclear, the courts will side with the other party to the contract - i.e. in this case the policyholder, as they didn't write it.
I would certainly argue that at the time of the claim the vehicle had not been left in that location for any period exceeding 24 consecutive hours and therefore the claim should be paid.
It's perfectly reasonable for an insurer to limit their liability in such circumstances, but the policy terms must be very clear so that the policyholder knows what cover they have. In my view the clause isn't clear enough.
- It is not covered if the vehicle has been in such location for more than 24 hours at the time of the theft
- It is not covered if the vehicle was intended to be in such location for more than 24 hours, regardless whether the theft happened before or after that 24 hours had expired
Generally where a clause if unclear, the courts will side with the other party to the contract - i.e. in this case the policyholder, as they didn't write it.
I would certainly argue that at the time of the claim the vehicle had not been left in that location for any period exceeding 24 consecutive hours and therefore the claim should be paid.
It's perfectly reasonable for an insurer to limit their liability in such circumstances, but the policy terms must be very clear so that the policyholder knows what cover they have. In my view the clause isn't clear enough.
Al3xWoody said:
“Not covered for any claim… which was left at any location other than the address shown in the schedule or address of any employee for any period exceeding 24 consecutive hours”
Not straight forwards... It was broken in to within 6 hours on the Friday, but you did not find out until Monday.Therefore it HAS been left for longer than 24 hours.
I would say, if it had been moved after the theft, then it would be covered.
Otherwise, no so sure.
The clause ( to me ) appears quite straightforward in that no cover for tools should said vehicle be away from the stated address for greater than 24 hours.
Intent of individual to leave for longer than this is not part of the denial unless he somehow said as much ?
Assuming he didn't ( and why would he ?) then I don't think the Insurer can deny the claim hence my previous comments.
Possibly the interesting issue is more about the OP leaving the van knowing it was going to be longer than 24 hours and then whomever stole the tools waiting until say the Sunday night to do so at which point there definitely wouldn't have been any cover in force due to that clause.
And even that is assuming OP knew that clause was even in the policy.
I suppose OP was in fact " lucky " therefore that the theft occurred 6 hours in.
I suspect the Insurer will pay up though because by definition of their own clause, cover is in place.
Intent of individual to leave for longer than this is not part of the denial unless he somehow said as much ?
Assuming he didn't ( and why would he ?) then I don't think the Insurer can deny the claim hence my previous comments.
Possibly the interesting issue is more about the OP leaving the van knowing it was going to be longer than 24 hours and then whomever stole the tools waiting until say the Sunday night to do so at which point there definitely wouldn't have been any cover in force due to that clause.
And even that is assuming OP knew that clause was even in the policy.
I suppose OP was in fact " lucky " therefore that the theft occurred 6 hours in.
I suspect the Insurer will pay up though because by definition of their own clause, cover is in place.
No ideas for a name said:
Al3xWoody said:
“Not covered for any claim… which was left at any location other than the address shown in the schedule or address of any employee for any period exceeding 24 consecutive hours”
Not straight forwards... It was broken in to within 6 hours on the Friday, but you did not find out until Monday.Therefore it HAS been left for longer than 24 hours.
I would say, if it had been moved after the theft, then it would be covered.
Otherwise, no so sure.
Insurers are doing what insurers try to do ..... Always.
Griffith4ever said:
No ideas for a name said:
Al3xWoody said:
“Not covered for any claim… which was left at any location other than the address shown in the schedule or address of any employee for any period exceeding 24 consecutive hours”
Not straight forwards... It was broken in to within 6 hours on the Friday, but you did not find out until Monday.Therefore it HAS been left for longer than 24 hours.
I would say, if it had been moved after the theft, then it would be covered.
Otherwise, no so sure.
Insurers are doing what insurers try to do ..... Always.
I would say that if your van was robbed 6 hours after parking it, and you then moved it within 24 hours, you would certainly be covered. You may only have discovered the theft say on Monday morning when you came to use a tool... then reported the theft, still covered.
I think we agree the insurer is looking for an easy way not to pay. The wording doesn't mention anything to do with the timing of the theft or reporting, only the duration of parking.
It isn't a sensible interpretation, but that is what the words say.
I agree that the duration of parking after the theft isn't relevant in the real world - but again it isn't defined as such.
For clarity, I want the OP to be able to claim, and I think the insurers are being disingenuous to rely on the ambiguous wording.
Thanks everyone for comments. Van was indeed left for more than 24 hours, which was clearly an error. The insurance company are aware of this - but as has been said, the theft took place after 6 hours. Insurance company is refusing to pay.
I will be pushing back on this, tho clearly we did make a mistake in leaving the van for longer than the policy states. As an additional factor, it does seem like there is an additional clause that suggests in the event of the van being left for over 24hrs, it will indeed be covered but at a higher excess.
I’m also intrigued at the workshop not taking responsibility for a vehicle in their care parked where they chose to move it to… happy to keep you all posted.
I will be pushing back on this, tho clearly we did make a mistake in leaving the van for longer than the policy states. As an additional factor, it does seem like there is an additional clause that suggests in the event of the van being left for over 24hrs, it will indeed be covered but at a higher excess.
I’m also intrigued at the workshop not taking responsibility for a vehicle in their care parked where they chose to move it to… happy to keep you all posted.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff