Home Back door unlocked

[LMCD]

Hi all,

I realised when I went to pay for lunch today that money was taken from my wallet. Rang home to be told by my husband that birthday present money for our son is missing too, plus various items, jewellery, camera, etc. It seems someone took it last night, we forgot to lock the back door.

Does anyone know if we can still claim on our house insurance and report this to the Gardai, when we ommitted to lock the door?

 

[kkelliher]

You are not generally covered by insurance if there is no forced entry or sign of same. It depends on your policy wording but I would guess they all have the standard

 

[colm]

In the current climate you will have a very hard job getting your insurance company to pay out on this.

 

[Claimsman]

In the current climate you will have a very hard job getting your insurance company to pay out on this.

Not true. A policy forms the basis of a legally binding contract between insurers and a policyholder. Insurers cant decide that because there is a recession, that they wont provide an indemnity. It is either covered by the policy or not.

The simple fact is that MOST policies will cover for theft, regardless of whether there was forcible and violent entry. However, virtually all policies will exclude theft of money if there is no forcible and violent entry. Therefore check your policy wording, but is likely that you will be covered for what has been stolen, excluding the cash. Make sure that you report this theft to the Gardai asap as this is a policy condition.
.

 

[colm]

Not true. A policy forms the basis of a legally binding contract between insurers and a policyholder. Insurers cant decide that because there is a recession, that they wont provide an indemnity. It is either covered by the policy or not.

Agreed, but in my professional experience insurance companies are refusing payments now where they would have them go in the past.
They are regularly looking for proof now of alarms been set & serviced.
In the past this would be ignored unleess a very substantail claim was involved. If your policy for example states a certain standard of lock is in place they may insist that be used as they are discounting your premium on that basis.

 

[Ed054]

Agreed, but in my professional experience insurance companies are refusing payments now where they would have them go in the past.
They are regularly looking for proof now of alarms been set & serviced.
In the past this would be ignored unleess a very substantail claim was involved. If your policy for example states a certain standard of lock is in place they may insist that be used as they are discounting your premium on that basis.

Most household policies cover larceny i.e. theft where there is no forcible entry or exit to the property and even if there is an alarm warranty in force the insurers cannot turn the claim down as the property was occupied at the time of loss.

You will note that in most household policies the intruder alarm warranty applies when the property is unoccupied(I am unaware of any that applies when the property is occupied) as is the requirement regarding approved door and window locks

On this basis I fail to see the point of your argument.

 

[Claimsman]

Agreed, but in my professional experience insurance companies are refusing payments now where they would have them go in the past.
They are regularly looking for proof now of alarms been set & serviced.
In the past this would be ignored unleess a very substantail claim was involved. If your policy for example states a certain standard of lock is in place they may insist that be used as they are discounting your premium on that basis.

It seems Colm that your professional experience may differ somewhat from mine. The status of the alarm is only relevant if there is an alarm warranty on the policy otherwise, the alarm status is not taken into account. They cannot and will not decline a claim if the alarm is not set and there is no alarm warranty in force.If there is an alarm warranty, insurers will not and have never ignored this (in my experience) regardless of the level of the claim.

 

[DavidM]

It seems Colm that your professional experience may differ somewhat from mine. The status of the alarm is only relevant if there is an alarm warranty on the policy otherwise, the alarm status is not taken into account. They cannot and will not decline a claim if the alarm is not set and there is no alarm warranty in force.If there is an alarm warranty, insurers will not and have never ignored this (in my experience) regardless of the level of the claim.

I entirely agree with the above. In any event, alarm warranties are rare on standard household policies unless there are very high value items in the house and the sums insured on contents are in excess of €100,000 which is rare.

 

[Ed054]

I entirely agree with the above. In any event, alarm warranties are rare on standard household policies unless there are very high value items in the house and the sums insured on contents are in excess of €100,000 which is rare.

Not as rare as you think they are now generally apply the warranty when you notify your insurers that you have an alarm and they give you a discount on the premium.

If you have an alarm check your plicy and schedule you will probably be surprised to see the warranty.

My advice do not advise your insurer that you have an alarm as the cover is more restrictive then if you don't!

 

[colm]

I agrre. In the last 2 months I have been asked on a weekly basis to supply service records & confirmation that systems conform to EN50131.
I have also been asked on occasion to verify time of set & unset on domistic alarms.
Without speaking literally , generally I find if an insurance company are giving you a discount for somthing they want it utilised.

 

[jack2009]

From my experience that as there is no forced entry the Garda will not be interested in your case as you cannot prove that a criminal act occured.

As for insurance you will have to check your policy. Again from experience, the insurance company declined cover as there was no sign of forced entry.

 

[Ed054]

From my experience that as there is no forced entry the Garda will not be interested in your case as you cannot prove that a criminal act occured.

As for insurance you will have to check your policy. Again from experience, the insurance company declined cover as there was no sign of forced entry.

It does not have to be forced entry as most Household policies cover larceny.
Please also note that the Gardai would be interested as the cause of loss is theft.
Legally there does not need to be forcible entry or exit for a loss to occur.
For example shoplifting is not covered under a shop policy as forcible entry or exit did not occur but it is still clearly theft.

 

[LMCD]

Hi all

Thanks for the contributions

I decided not to contact the insurance company and gaurds as it was our own fault for not locking the door, we will learn from the experience and are just thankful it wasn't much value that was taken, things could have been a lot worse because of our own carelessness

 

[colm]

For example shoplifting is not covered under a shop policy as forcible entry or exit did not occur but it is still clearly theft.

But the shops insurance policy would be based on other security that may be in place to prevent this. eg Tagging CCTV security staff etc..
Compaing a shop, where the public have access, to a house where they don't is hardly a valid argument.

 

[Ed054]

But the shops insurance policy would be based on other security that may be in place to prevent this. eg Tagging CCTV security staff etc..
Compaing a shop, where the public have access, to a house where they don't is hardly a valid argument.

You are missing the point.

I am only saying that just because there is not breaking and entering of a premises it does'nt mean that a theft has not taken place.

A household policy covers theft as a result of forcible entry or exit the same as a shop policy

A household policy also covers larceny which is theft without forcible entry or exit (such as leaving a door open and someone coming in and stealing a handbag or a wallet)

Shoplifting which would be considered as larceny is not under any circumstances covered under a shop policy.

A shop policy only covers theft larceny cover is not available.

The provision of tagging CCTV and security staff are used by shops to contain the level of shoplifting.

 

[tester1]

The fact the thieves had to turn the handle is forcible entry - the door was not wide open, they had to use force to open same.
I work insurance and this argument has been sucessfully used before.
It in my opinion was not your fault, a simple mistake.

 

[Claimsman]

The fact the thieves had to turn the handle is forcible entry - the door was not wide open, they had to use force to open same.
I work insurance and this argument has been sucessfully used before.
It in my opinion was not your fault, a simple mistake.

Yes, turning the handle is forcible entry..this has been established in case law. However, in most commericial policies, the policy stipulates that the theft must be accompanied by forcible AND violent entry,violence or threatened violence etc. However,In most household policies, forcible and violent entry is not a requirement, except when it comes to theft of money. The OP's loss should certainly be covered (except for the cash), but, it is a moot point, he has decided not to claim.

 

[Ed054]

Yes, turning the handle is forcible entry..this has been established in case law. However, in most commericial policies, the policy stipulates that the theft must be accompanied by forcible AND violent entry,violence or threatened violence etc. However,In most household policies, forcible and violent entry is not a requirement, except when it comes to theft of money. The OP's loss should certainly be covered (except for the cash), but, it is a moot point, he has decided not to claim.

Case law has also accepted that turning a key into a lock is forcible entry where the intention is theft.
Anyway as you have pointed out we are only looking at moot points!

 

[Annieann]

Why don't you just contact the insurance company anyway and see what they say - let them make the decision rather than assume you wont be successful. No harm to have a record on file with the guards also.

 

[colm]

You are missing the point.

I am only saying that just because there is not breaking and entering of a premises it does'nt mean that a theft has not taken place.

A household policy covers theft as a result of forcible entry or exit the same as a shop policy

A household policy also covers larceny which is theft without forcible entry or exit (such as leaving a door open and someone coming in and stealing a handbag or a wallet)

Shoplifting which would be considered as larceny is not under any circumstances covered under a shop policy.

A shop policy only covers theft larceny cover is not available.

The provision of tagging CCTV and security staff are used by shops to contain the level of shoplifting.

I agree there is a good chance the insurance covers it.
There is an equally good chance you insurance may not cover it.
eg if the insurance company are giving you a discount based on using certain locks or an alarm etc. If you home is not protected in that manner they can (I have much experience of this) refuse a claim