Car insurance company won't pay out for stolen car (not mine

[Z064life]

Hi All,


My brother's car recently got stolen and the insurance company (Zenith) have been reluctant to pay out (claim still in process and appealed however) on the basis that there was no evidence of forced entry into the vehicle.


I'm not sure if this is a common line from insurance companies, but is there anything he can do to improve his chances of a payout?



Thanks

[ambuletz]

was it a very modern BMW?

[Magic919]

Read the policy.

[vikingaero]

Whar car?

[Saleen836]

I always thought they waited a month or 2 incase the car is recovered?

[Toltec]

Saleen836 said:

I always thought they waited a month or 2 incase the car is recovered?

Ten days with my insurer.

[eltax91]

If there's no sign of forced entry, then one assumes the car has been recovered?

If so, why do they need to pay out? Isn't it damaged?

[Paul_B]

So I take it, it was recovered? Otherwise how would they know there was no sign of forced entry? Am I being dim?

[Z064life]

Hi All

Apologies for the late reply and yes I did leave out a few important details!

The car is a Nissan Navara. Doesn't have keyless ignition/entry etc like modern BMWs, etc.

The car was recovered but written off. From their investigation/analysis they think the car had no forced entry, but we can't see how this is possible.

[xRIEx]

Did the thieves have a key, or is your brother in possession of both?

[vikingaero]

Agree. Does your brother have possession of both and indeed all the keys?

Looks like an official written complaint and ombudsman route.

Seems like Zenith have pretty poor reviews online.

[scorcher]

xRIEx said:

Did the thieves have a key, or is your brother in possession of both?

If its a few years old it may only have one key. Plenty of older cars only have one due to them being lost/not handed on to dealers etc, and are never replaced due to the cost.

[eltax91]

scorcher said:

xRIEx said:

Did the thieves have a key, or is your brother in possession of both?

If its a few years old it may only have one key. Plenty of older cars only have one due to them being lost/not handed on to dealers etc, and are never replaced due to the cost.

Yes quite. Or one of them is 'lost' with the dodgy trader that shifted on last. Who also happens to have the owners name/ address when they sold him the car.

OP - he hasn't bought it fairly recently has he?

[xRIEx]

eltax91 said:

scorcher said:

xRIEx said:

Did the thieves have a key, or is your brother in possession of both?

If its a few years old it may only have one key. Plenty of older cars only have one due to them being lost/not handed on to dealers etc, and are never replaced due to the cost.

Yes quite. Or one of them is 'lost' with the dodgy trader that shifted on last. Who also happens to have the owners name/ address when they sold him the car.

OP - he hasn't bought it fairly recently has he?

Exactly.

What we (or the insurer) are talking about is proof of forced entry. With all keys in possession of the policyholder (whether 1, 2 or 3 keys), that is proof that the vehicle must have been entered by force.

[CanAm]

xRIEx said:

Exactly.

What we (or the insurer) are talking about is proof of forced entry. With all keys in possession of the policyholder (whether 1, 2 or 3 keys), that is proof that the vehicle must have been entered by force.

Only if no duplicates were made along the way.

[xRIEx]

CanAm said:

xRIEx said:

Exactly.

What we (or the insurer) are talking about is proof of forced entry. With all keys in possession of the policyholder (whether 1, 2 or 3 keys), that is proof that the vehicle must have been entered by force.

Only if no duplicates were made along the way.

When I've dealt with motor claims, insurers have never asked if duplicates were made. They just asked for all keys to be sent in.

[CanAm]

xRIEx said:

When I've dealt with motor claims, insurers have never asked if duplicates were made. They just asked for all keys to be sent in.

I agree. They just ask for the two (or whatever) original keys. But that's no proof that it must have been a forced entry.

[xRIEx]

CanAm said:

xRIEx said:

When I've dealt with motor claims, insurers have never asked if duplicates were made. They just asked for all keys to be sent in.

I agree. They just ask for the two (or whatever) original keys. But that's no proof that it must have been a forced entry.

How do you unforcibly take a vehicle without a key?

[CanAm]

xRIEx said:

How do you unforcibly take a vehicle without a key?

See above. Dodgy person acquires duplicate key. New buyer hands two originals to Insurers when car is later stolen without F&VE.
Numerous cases of Range Rovers being stolen without keys. Friend locked out of his Mondeo with all keys inside; nice RAC man effected entry without any visible damage to car.

[xRIEx]

CanAm said:

xRIEx said:

How do you unforcibly take a vehicle without a key?

See above. Dodgy person acquires duplicate key. New buyer hands two originals to Insurers when car is later stolen without F&VE.
Numerous cases of Range Rovers being stolen without keys. Friend locked out of his Mondeo with all keys inside; nice RAC man effected entry without any visible damage to car.

xRIEx said:

without a key?

CanAm said:

acquires duplicate key.

Does not compute.

By definition, breaking into a car without using a key is "forcible entry" - there was the old trick of smacking half a tennis ball over a Ford lock to unlock it - no visible damage but entry was by forcible means. No visible damage is not the same thing as "no forcible entry".

How to start a car without a key? OBC (in the case of BMW), or hotwiring - still forcible, even if no visible damage.

Picking a lock is forcible entry (although you'd expect to see evidence marks).

The insurance wording is there to ensure the policyholder is not negligent in securing their vehicle (or house, for home insurance). Zenith (and Markerstudy) have a history of stty wordings.