Insurers will turn down claims for theft when security features are ‘thief proof’

legal updates

This case highlights the need for dealers to have a very strict key control policy.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

The financial Ombudsman agreed with insurers that a claim should be turned down when a car was apparently stolen, and then set on fire,  given the car had an ‘intelligent’ programmed key.

The son of the insured gave evidence that he arrived home and said the car was missing.  The insurer said the only other way to remove the car was by transporter or low truck but in such cases the alarm would have sounded. 

In defence of the insured and her claim the original dealer said the car’s security could be by-passed.  That evidence however was not sufficient to counter that of the insurers.  

The case very much highlights the need for dealers to have a very strict key control policy to avoid being turned down on theft claims.

Wearewood Services LtdMotor Trade Web Specialists

We offer an all-encompassing web, digital & design service specially tailored to the Motor Industry.

Dennis ChapmanIn remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015Read More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Customer’s vehicle damaged in your care

It is down to the Bailor to check the insurance position with the Bailee if they have any concerns.

Personal Injury Claims

Your insurers will know exactly what to do to ensure the rules are followed, and therefore, the Claimant will not win on a technicality.

Insurers lose Business Interruption Insurance Appeal

Business Interruption insurance came to prominence in 2020 due to the policies which have cover for disruption caused by infectious/notifiable diseases.

Driving a vehicle under the Driving Other Cars extension on your insurance policy

Always make sure that you have the appropriate cover on any vehicle that you or your business use as it could be much more costly than you think.

Claim companies target PCP and GAP

These sort of claims generally end up with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) whose decisions can be random.

Employers Liability – Compulsory Insurance

The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 ensures that you have the minimum level of insurance cover against possible claims.

Avoid test drive troubles

Ensure you have sufficient paperwork with all the necessary T’s & C’s.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.