Wow, Ganymede is a bit touchy ! UB67 was merely stating what happens in practice. Can't see any suggestion that law firms would act as charities, perish the thought!

Insurers use of the "Reasonable Care" exclusion is on the decline as the FOS and courts now often take a view that someone has to have been "reckless"; [adj. 1. a. Heedless or careless. b. Headstrong; rash. 2. Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences] with their property before they will uphold decisions to refuse cover. A momentary lapse is often insufficient grounds to decline a claim using this exclusion. Re: business use. There may be a valid claim for the money on a personal policy but it will depend on the nature of your father's employment. If, for example, he is a sole trader of self employed, he could argue that his takings are his salary and are therefore for his own personal use. He would be using them to buy his groceries, pay his mortgage/rent etc.

If your daughter is going to be the main user of the vehicle then you can't just add her as a "named driver" to a policy in your name: this is called "fronting" and is a form of insurance fraud: you are obtaining cheaper insurance by misrepresenting the facts. The insurance proposal will ask you who is the main user - if you truthfully state that the main user is your daughter, the policy will be rated on her. If you lie, and say you are the main user then you may be committing a crime. Insurers are increasingly aware of this practice for young drivers and in the event of a claim, may void the policy, refuse to pay claims, prosecute for fraud etc. Sorry, not trying to scare you but I have seen all this happen. Sometimes, they will just charge additional premium based on the extra that should have been paid but if you have deliberately misrepresented the facts to obtain a cheaper premium, they are likely to be less forgiving.

It's highly likely the keys were visible, how else would the thief know where they were and be able to hook them through the catflap? It's unlikely he would have tried this method on the off-chance that there might just be some keys there..... The purpose of the policy exclusion you describe is to ensure that householders take steps to keep keys out of sight so as to avoid this very type of theft. The exact policy wording would determine whether you had a case and the FOS may have some case law (although their decisions don't set precedent) on similar claims where the key was not visible to casual passers by (as in your situation, the thief had to climb into the garden).