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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree there is a good chance the insurance covers it.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?