Comment on British cyclist refused £15k payout because thieves ‘weren’t violent enough’
mjr@infosec.pub 1 day agoIf it has to be specified in the contracts, the insurer clearly isn’t confident that it’s common knowledge, so why are you?
Also, wasn’t there something in the news recently about how long it would take to read all the contracts needed for basic life, and it’s weeks each year. These companies are doing “paperwork snowstorm attacks” on our lives.
glimse@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Common sense would have been a better term to choose. They left $15,000 in a type of container that’s famously easy to get into.
mjr@infosec.pub 1 day ago
If they don’t want to insure possessions left in vans, they should exclude them explicitly. Denying payouts by relying on a requirement that the theft is violent is sneaky and surely should be regarded as an unfair term in a consumer contract, if not some sort of con or fraud.
glimse@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yes, your vehicle IS explicitly not included in your homeowners insurance. This isn’t buried in the paperwork or some kind of gotcha.
You’ve outed yourself as having only read the clickbait headline so this argument is useless. If the thieves didn’t have to break anything to steal the bikes, they were not secured.