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.
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.
I’ve read it. You don’t seem to have , or you need to read it again. The claim wasn’t denied simply due to it being from a vehicle, or for nothing being broken, but due to the break-in not being sufficiently violent.
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.
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.
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.
I’ve read it. You don’t seem to have , or you need to read it again. The claim wasn’t denied simply due to it being from a vehicle, or for nothing being broken, but due to the break-in not being sufficiently violent.
Yeah…the bicycles were kept in a place that didn’t require force to open. Meaning improperly secured…