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
Comment on British cyclist refused £15k payout because thieves ‘weren’t violent enough’
Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 3 days ago
So reading between the lines, they were left in an unlocked van, or a locked van that had a lock that wasn’t suitable for securing £15,000 of gear.
My wife has two very expensive road bikes. They are d-locked onto a fixed shelving unit in the garage as a condition of the insurance. I did this because when I insured the bikes as specific named items on the house insurance I asked them what steps I needed to take.
This doesn’t take away from the fact that this is entirely the fault of the criminals, 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. And I can guarantee with items this expensive there would have been explicit conditions of insurance
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
mjr@infosec.pub 2 days 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.
mjr@infosec.pub 2 days 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.
tangentism@beehaw.org 2 days 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!
mjr@infosec.pub 2 days 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.
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day 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.