Reply to thread

Click here to become an Official Member of BMW Club Malaysia Download Form

Message: <blockquote data-quote="devilsadvocate" data-source="post: 284603" data-attributes="member: 4411">Hmmm, let us examine the standard private motor car policy. Downloadable from the Big motor insurers website.The operative clause says that the Insurer will cover the Insure for any damage or loss cause by burglary, housebreaking or theft.the above scenario i.e Harrier at BSC should fall within the ordinary meaning of theft - misappropriating property belonging to another without valid consent.now let us look at the policy exclusions and see if any apply. The closest i presume would be 4(e) loss caused by cheating or CBT as defined by the Penal Code(If i recall correctly s405-409 and S419-XXX)IF the Insurer wants to rely on a policy exclusion to deny liability under the policy, the onus is on them to establish that the loss was caused by cheating/CBT.The only other catch I presume would be the policy condition7(c) that requires the car owner to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. But this is subjective. In the above scenario, all the person did was hand over the key to the car wash person. nothing unusual. when he returns he finds the car missing and the car wash fella tells him - mike  - someone collected the car earlier-lah. I am presuming when the person left the car - he did collect some form of receipt which should be returned to the car wash guy so that the car wash guy can identify the owner. IF the above not carried out - argumentatively  - policy condition 7 (c) can be argued. Henceforth the motor car Insurer if repudiating a claim should state the grounds for so. there is no clear cut answer or blanket rule. further analysis of the situation must be made.  A blanket statement 'Insurer will not pay the loss' is not absolutely correct. cheers</blockquote>

Verification