Scenario:
Micky's car was stolen from the driveway of her home while she was inside the house. She neither saw nor heard the theft. When she put in a claim to the firm, it asked her to send it her car keys. However, she was only able to produce the spare ignition key. Taking this as evidence that the key had been in the car when it was stolen. She had lost the key a month earlier and had been using the spare. She was adamant that she had not been 'careless', as the firm had suggested. After the firm rejected her complaint, she came to us.
Opinion:
I agreed with Micky that she had not been 'reckless'. Someone is reckless if they recognize a risk, but deliberately 'court' it. Micky had not done this, so the firm was wrong to say that she had breached the 'reasonable care' condition. However, the firm had specifically highlighted this clause when it sold Micky the policy. And as i not satisfied with Micky's explanation that she had lost the original car key, i concluded on balance that it was likely that she had left the key in the car. I satisfied that circumstances of this theft did fall within the scope of that exclusion. She could be said to have 'left' the keys in the car because she had gone into the house, and was too far from the car to be able to prevent it being stolen. Furthermore, the fact that the car was parked so close to the road meant it was relatively vulnerable to an opportunistic thief. Therefore, in my opinion, i rejected the complaint.
No comments:
Post a Comment