Comment on British cyclist refused £15k payout because thieves ‘weren’t violent enough’

Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• lyralycan@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  You right. Meeting the terms of contract with a mutual agreement has always been a requirement. Who knows what the terms were in their contract but ‘a van’ as the secure storage and ‘I don’t know how’ they got in isn’t good enough. You need to know what locks were on the van. When I insured my motorcycle I had to include the model of D lock, as I learned later, relying solely on the bike’s lock isn’t enough because with enough force thieves can yank the handlebars and snap the key lock off the forks. Or carry the while thing onto a bed

  source

  • mjr@infosec.pub ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Insurance varies. My insurer requires bikes be locked to an anchor (so not loose in a van!) But it doesn’t specify a nonsense lock branding symbol like “sold secure”. It sounds like their policy did cover bikes loose in a van, but had this nasty “violent” clause that they’ve used to deny liability.

    source
• kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  You don’t even need to read between any lines. It’s in the article, albeit at the very bottom … The items were never insured because they weren’t disclosed and not in a secured area as described in the policy.

  A spokesman from AA Insurance Services said: “When purchasing their home insurance policy, the customer did not declare personal possession of bikes in excess of £2,000.

  “Our terms and conditions are clear that claims relating to possessions stolen from vehicles, items need to have been placed in a covered boot or glovebox and there be evidence of forced or violent entry.

  “As this wasn’t the case, the claim has been rejected.

  “We have advised the customer how to challenge the decision should they wish to do so.”

  source
• mjr@infosec.pub ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  but being morally right and the insurance company being morally wrong won’t lead to a payout if they can prove you didn’t secure your property in a manner consistent with the insurance policy.

  Note that the security or quality of the lock was apparently not questioned. It seems to have been mainly that the theft wasn’t violent enough to the locked door.

  There’s a side mention of the bikes not being specified as high value items, but that would probably have limited the payout, not denied it entirely.

  source
• Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I live in a flat but lucky enough to have a small concrete brick shed, it’s not near the flat so it’s a concern. I have two expensive bikes, both insured and locked according to the insurance requirements, plus some. A mix of diamond and gold standard locks and ground anchors. Two locks on the shed door and each bike is separatly chained to anchors.

  Yes they’re insured but I’d rather not have to claim!

  This girl’s parents should take more time to understand their insurance. I feel sorry for them, but they have learnt a costly lesson.

  source
• tangentism@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Also most people who live in Clapham (and every other area) know not to leave anything in a vehicle overnight, let alone 3 bikes!

  source

  • mjr@infosec.pub ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Don’t be daft. Have you seen what people leave in their cars? I’ve left bikes in a car overnight, but don’t think I would in Clapham.

    The AA want you to blame the victim. I blame the thieves, including the AA taking money for a service they put weasel clauses in.

    source