Is there a time limit for fighting a claim

[anney63]

I have a friend who claimed re a motocycle theft and was refused a payout as the insurance company claimed the bike should have been parked behind a locked gate or manned barrier at my place of work. The wording in the insurance document was should be off road private property secure car park. As it was in his company car park which is private and off road and could be seen from a window and was checked initermittenly, The bike could not been seen from the road so thieves had to trespass to steal it. This happened in 2004 is it too late to dispute the insurance companies findings as I feel he should not have let this drop

[Glenn UK]

you have six years from the date of the dispute i think youll find.

 

if he has all the info needed then perhpas he should take it up with the relevant ombudsman if the insurance company wont deal with him.

 

JMHO

 

glenn

[anney63]

Thanks Glenn

I think I will probably have a go on his behalf I do so luv a good fight with these people

[xrchris]

In what way was the car park made secure?

[Glenn UK]

Just as an aside my motrocycle must be kept in a locked garage when at home, however, it only has to be in the company car park to be covered when i at work and when not at either of these places there are no restrictions beyond it being secured by the means its provided with ie steering lock and immobiliser

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[anney63]

Hi Glenn

I'm going to have a look at the paperwork at the weekend. It appears that it just says secure which to me is quite ambiguous(not sure if that's correct spelling) but the insurance company was Groupama.

This is the mail I have just received from my friend explaining his predicament . You input would be really appreciated.

The bike was parked approx. 30ft away from the entrance to the car park, behind a bush and parked cars making it impossible to see unless walking a far distance on the property. Which in my view made the bike more secure. It was almost in front of the front doors to the building. Visible from a window (which meant I only had to stand up and walk two meters to view - which I did almost every other half hour). The car park is private property and access is only available to employees and other people that do business with the company. It is not a public car park. The fact the site is on an industrial site means it has less people walking around etc, unlike high street or normal residential road. There's signs saying CCTV in operation, etc. Employees only, etc.

 

 

I took all this as to be secure. I never thought for one moment that the claus meant there had to be either a locked gate or manned barrier. And I did actually read the claus, unlike many other people I have asked. Not many people read the small print.

 

 

No where is there any mention of secure meaning either a locked gate or manned barrier. And not many places around here have those facilities. Even if those were in force - does this also include every vehicle to be check before leaving the property? Lorries fully loaded with pallets?

 

 

The thieves pulled up at the same time as another van making a delivery (normal every day occurrence), parking between the building - thus hiding the bike from view meaning no one would have seen anything unless they walked behind the van. They picked it up (unable to push the bike due to security locking, etc,) and lifted it in to the van via a side loading door.

 

 

This was not a opportunist theft. The bike had obviously been marked for stealing and would have eventually been stolen from anywhere it had been left. The theft was mid afternoon in broad daylight. They would have probably done anything to get it. It was worth £8500. It was also obviously someone that knew of me, as a few weeks later, probably thinking I had been given a replacement bike, my garage and back door to my property were broken into. Both places are where I have previously kept bikes.

 

 

I was always careful with wherever I left the bike. I never went anywhere where it would be left out of my site. I never even popped in a shop. The only reason I left it outside of work was due to thinking it was totally safe there.

 

 

What I don't understand is the detail the broker goes into explaining the security requirements for parking the bike at home before selling the cover. They request the bike be parked in a brick built garage and secured to a "Sold Secure" ground anchor which is Police approved. They are quite specific requirements - "brick built", "Sold Secure". The could have easily just put garage (leaving it open to be either brick built, or wood built, etc.,) but they are very specific with the requirement of it being brick built. The same with the Sold Secure ground anchor. They could have just requested a "ground anchor" leaving it open to any sort of ground from a shop or even a home made one - but again, they were very specific with the requirement of it being a sold secure - police approved ground anchor.

 

 

So why were they not specific with how secure they require a place of work's car park? Considering it would be parked there almost 5 days a week for 9 hours a day.

 

"If I had known from the start that was the requirement I would obviously not used the bike or gone for another policy that would have allowed me to park it there. That bike meant everything to me - it was the biggest part of my life. Bikes have been in my life since I was a kid and that is what I have always worked for - to have a nice bike. My whole social life evolved around motorbikes. I didn't have many friends that did not have a bike. The theft affected me a lot. I've never had anything stolen before, then with the insurance refusing to pay out had a big impact on my life. I became very depressed and short tempered, almost lost my job twice and split from my fiancee. All due to the affect the theft and none settlement had on me resulting in losing all trust in everyone."

[anney63]

Sorry Glen missed the document wording off

"Theft cover will not operate when your motorcycle is used for commuting or business purposes unless it is parked in a secure, private, off street facility at work where public access is restricted. "

The reason they gave for not paying was that there was not a locked gate or a manned barrier. !!!!!!!!!!! A number of other insurance companies have stated they would have paid.

[Glenn UK]

I doubt you would be succesful because of the secure comment, unless there was any security on the site.

 

GLenn

[anney63]

It just seems odd when all other companies spoken to have said they would pay out. I understand what your saying about secure but surely it was on private ground of street and public access was restricted. What do they mean by secure. It couldn't even be seen from the road. The bike was obviusly stolen to order. Still need to look at paperwork and see or even maybe get the media involved may help who knows. I really appreciate your input Glenn but anything would be better than nothing .

[Glenn UK]

I suppose it would be worth putting togehter a letter, you have nowt to loose, but i wouldnt expect to get anything.

 

However, before coming to this site i wouldnt have enve considered doing half the things i have.

 

I think if the word 'secure' is not defiend then it means that its open to debate, what does the OED say the word secure means I wonder?

 

did the bike have any kind of chain/disc lock fitted and if so was this reported to the insurance company?

 

Glenn

[anney63]

I really can't give any further info until I get all the paperwork tomorrow. Just been looking at the company seem massive but still I took on the Abbey for my son and won . So anythings possible keeps the old brain going. Will let you know more later.

[Trojan1401]

I think it is definately worth persuing as the wording is ambiguous. What is secure ?

 

Were there unmanned barriers at the car park, regular security patrols etc. Take it up first of all with Groupama then if no joy, the ombudsman.

[anney63]

Just checked all paperwork my friend went to the ombudsman and appealed.but no joy even appealed and brought attention to a part in the policy which was to do with terrorism and was detailed but still no joy. He di say he was going to then claim against his broker as he never had a full policy only covernote until after the claim there was just a sentence re the secure bit . When he phoned the person stated on the policy who would deal with claims against the broker didn't want to know advised the ombudsman he was to send a form but never happened. I looked at the brokers and noted that they were covered by the GISC General Insurance Standards Council and showing a website addres when you go into www.gisc.co.uk nothing so all very strange I think he has to put it down to experience.

[xrchris]

GISC no longer exist as they did back in 2004, they were the voluntary regulatory body at the time which has now been superceded by the FSA.

 

Does he still have the policy documents?

 

If so you can you type 'word for word' any security endorsement that it states in the policy book or policy schedule.

[anney63]

Hi As Follows:-

"Theft cover will not operate when your motor cycle is used for commuting or business purposes unless it is parked in a secure,private off street facility at work where public access is restricted.

Theft cover excluded unless security conditions above are complied with"

What I find annoying is that he never had a copy of the full policy until after the theft when he requested it. I have a copy of his letter to the insurance company arguing his and also FSO. I can PM you if you wish. I really feel so sorry for him he is £8500 down and through no fault of his own although this happened in 2004 it cause total depression and he gave up it just seems so unfair when the word secure can be interpreted in many ways. he had a tracking device etc.

[xrchris]

Ask them where in their policy documents they define the word secure. If they do not then ask them to provide written evidence of their definition and from where this definition was obtained. Might be able to give them enough rope so that they hang themselves.

[anney63]

does he take this up with fso or Groupama

[xrchris]

Groupama as it is their policy you are querying.

[anney63]

This is the final decision on 30th August 2005 nearly a year after the incident. It suddenly brings up mechanical immobilisation which he had . This was the first time this had been used in their responses.

It was after this my friend gave up as he did not have the funds to pay a solicitor.

Complaint

The firm has rejected the complainant's claim for theft of his motorcycle.

Circum§tances

The complainant's motorcycle was stolen on 8 September 2004 from outside his place of work. It had been parked behind a bush so as not to be visible from the road and it was close to and visible from the building. His insurance stated: "Theft cover will not operate when your motorcycle is used for commuting or business purposes unless iUs parked in a secure, private, off street facility at work where public access is restricted"~t was also required to be immobilised electronically and mechaniCallY)

The firm's investigators visited the site and considered that it did not comply with the requirement, although they accepted it was on private property not open to the public. They stated that there was no barrier to access to the parking area, and it was close to the road. There was no barrier between the public footpath and the parking place.

The firm rejected the claim on the basis that the parking place did not meet the policy's requirement for theft cover to operate. In his letter of 19 November 2004 the complainant stated that at the time of the theft the motorcycle had been immobilised electronically and mechanically and its parking place complied with the policy requirement. It was more than 20 metres away from the entrance to the site and the bush, and other cars, totally obscured it from view from the road. It was visible from a window which is 4 metres away from his desk and which is adjacent to the desk of a colleague who he had asked to keep an eye on the motorcycle. Access to the site is restricted to employees.

Having said that, he stated that the thieves had driven a van between the building and the motorcycle so as to steal it and he mentioned a delivery driver who may also have been in the parking area, indicating that the restriction to employees only was not well enforced, if at all.

XThe firm has told us that it considers the requirement for mechanical immobilisation was also breached in that the motorcycle was not fitted with any of the specified devices.X However, I note that it did not give this as a reason for rejecting the claim in its correspondence with the complainant.

Our adjudicator did not consider that the parking area was "secure", as the policy requirement stipulated it must be. He thought "secure"to be synonymous with there being no unauthorised access, implying the presence of a physical barrier or of security personnel at the entrance. The complainant questioned the meaning of "secure" and said that as it was not defined in the contract it was open to interpretation. He said that if the adjudicator's interpretation of the word had been made known to him at the outset he would not have

proceeded with the insurance or would not have left his motorcycle where he did. He did not consider that interpretation consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word "secure".

Findings

It seems to me that the parking area did comply with the insurance's requirement that it be private and off street. The issue, I believe, is whether, on a reasonable interpretation of the words (in the absence of definition in the policy), it was "secure" and whether "public access [was] restricted".

I can accept that "secure" might be read and understood subjectively, so that all that would be required is that the complainant considered the area secure in that he thought it offered protection against theft or malicious damage. One dictionary definition of "secure" is "free from danger; free from risk of loss; affording safety".

However, even on a subjective basis I am not satisfied the parking area was "secure". I have seen photographs of the area. From the photographs a public road and footpath run across the front of the complainant's workplace. The parking area is between the workplace and the footpath. The distance between the footpath and the workplace is difficult to judge, but could be around 50 feet. There is no physical barrier between the footpath and the parking area, only a relatively narrow strip of grass. A couple of smallish trees are planted in the grass. From the road the entrance way to and exit from the parking area appear to be open, with no barriers. In fact, the driveways from the road appear to be open to use for access to other workplaces, and open turnings from them give access to the parking area.

It appears to me there is little or nothing in the nature of conventional security measures.

The physical layout is such that I am also not satisfied that it can reasonably be said that "public access is restricted". Perhaps other than for concepts such as private property and trespass, it is not apparent that access is restricted at all, certainly not in any physical sense. I have seen a sign "employees only"which points towards the parking area, but this is small and faint and fixed against the wall of the building. I doubt it could easily be read from any distance away.

The bush behind which the complainant's motorcycle was parked is clearly visible, even from the other side of the road. I am not persuaded a large motorcycle would be completely obscured by it. The bush is dose to the corner Uf the parking area with the driveway leading to the road.

I do not believe the parking area failed to comply with the requirement of the insurance only on the basis of a specialised reading, or an insurance industry definition, of "secure". I do not believe it complied even on the normal everyday meaning of "secure" and it also failed to comply because I do not believe public access was restricted.

Given my view above, I do not need to consider the point regarding mechanical immobilisation.

I do not believe the firm's rejection of the claim was unreasonable.

2

K820x

 

[xrchris]

Well i hate to say it but that does sound like a fair and balanced adjudication to me.