Insurance companies are being reminded to be upfront about changes to policies after a claim is rejected because a window was left open during a security visit.
The Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme (IFSO Scheme) was asked to intervene after a couple had their home insurance claim rejected following a burglary at their home.
Mr and Mrs Singh returned from a holiday to find that they had been the victims of a crime. Access to their home had been gained through a small window that had been left open during a security visit.
Their insurer initially rejected the claim on the grounds that the house had not been securely locked during their absence.
The couple complained to the IFSO Scheme, which found that the insurer had introduced a policy in 2020 which imposed a new condition on the insured to ensure that their home was “securely locked” when “unattended”.
IFSO ombudsman Karen Stevens says other insurers do not have a similar condition in their home insurance policies, calling it an “unusual requirement”.
Stevens says other policies often contain “reasonable care conditions”, which require the holder to take care of the insured property, but it is unusual for a contents policy to contain a condition or exclusion based on the property being unattended.
“Often insurers will cover claims where a window has been unintentionally left unsecured,” says Stevens.
“If you have been reckless, grossly careless or grossly negligent with your property, an insurer may rely on your failure to comply with a reasonable care condition to reject your claim, but this was not the case with the Singhs.”
The IFSO scheme has ruled that the insurer should have notified the Singhs of the policy change.
“The law says that if a policy contains ‘onerous or unusual’ terms, insurers are obliged to bring them to the attention of their customers. However, in this case there was no evidence that they had specifically informed Mr and Mrs Singh of this unique condition,” says Stevens.
“While the ideal situation is where an insured has taken all steps to prevent a burglary, homeowners shouldn’t be disadvantaged by an unusual or unfamiliar condition in their policy,” said Stevens, “particularly if it is out of step with the rest of the industry.
