Aviva Insurance Limited · DRN-5712332

The complaint Mr J complained that Aviva Insurance Limited (“Aviva”) unfairly declined to cover his claim For the theft of money, watches, and jewellery from his car, under his home contents insurance policy. Mr J is represented by Ms M. But I’ll refer to Mr J in my decision for ease. What happened On 29 April 2024 Mr J said thieves stole £10,000 in cash, several watches, and some gold jewellery that he had in his car. He said the money was a wedding present, and he’d collected the jewellery and watches, from the bank, to be worn at the wedding. In total he said the value of the cash and items that were taken came to around £100,000. When the items were taken Mr J explained his car was parked and locked outside a tyre shop. He said a warning sensor had alerted him that he had a flat tyre. So, he’d stopped to attend to this issue. When he left the shop, he said he noticed his car boot and a door were open. He then discovered the sports bag, in which he’d left the cash and other items, was missing. Mr J said he called the police as well as alerting Aviva to his loss. Mr J said Aviva carried out an investigation. But it declined his claim. It told him that because his vehicle was unattended there was no cover for the money he’d lost. It also relied on a policy exclusion that said theft is only covered if violence and force are used to enter the vehicle. And that items must be concealed from sight and/or locked in the boot or glove box. Mr J appealed to Aviva, but it maintained its decline decision. So, he complained. In its final complaint response Aviva said its policy terms exclude cover for the items Mr J had claimed in the circumstances described. Mr J didn’t think Aviva had considered the full circumstances of his claim fairly and referred the matter to our service. Our investigator didn’t uphold his complaint. He said Aviva had shown that it had reasonably relied on its policy terms to decline Mr J’s claim. Mr J didn’t accept our investigator’s findings and asked for an ombudsman to consider his complaint. It has been passed to me to decide. I issued a provisional decision in June 2025 explaining that I was intending to uphold Mr J’s complaint. Here’s what I said: provisional findings I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so my intention is to uphold Mr J’s complaint. Let me explain.

-- 1 of 5 --

It’s for the policyholder to show they’ve suffered an insured loss. If they can, then generally speaking, the insurer should pay the claim. This is unless it can reasonably rely on a policy exclusion not to. I’ve focused on this here. Mr J described his movements on the day of the loss in a witness statement to Aviva. In this he said he drove to a bank and withdrew £10,000 in cash as a gift for his son’s upcoming wedding. He then visited another bank where he had his jewellery and watches held in a locker. Mr J collected these items and put them, as well as the £10,000 cash, in a sports bag on the back seat of his car. When he started the car Mr J noticed a warning light. He parked up and saw one of the tyres was almost flat and it was “hissing”. He drove to a tyre fitting shop close by. Mr J said the mechanic told him there was a metal object like an arrowhead in his tyre. This meant the tyre had to be replaced. He said he went into the tyre shop for two to three minutes. When he came out he noticed the rear door of his car was slightly open and the boot was also open. This is when Mr J noticed the bag in which his valuables and cash were being kept, was missing. In his statement Mr J said he thought his tyre had been damaged on purpose. He contacted the police to report the theft and received a crime reference number. But he said he received no further contact from them. Mr J said he thought the garage had CCTV, but he’d not made any enquiries about this. Mr J’s policy provides cover for his household contents as well as ‘valuables’ at his insured address. The policy also provides cover “anywhere in the world”. The terms define ‘valuables’ to include jewellery and watches. The policy also covers the loss of money. In the event of a theft, we expect Mr J to report this to the police. We’d also expect him to comply with any investigation Aviva carried out. From what I’ve read he did both. Based on the information I’ve seen Mr J has shown that he suffered an insured loss. So, if Aviva decides to decline his claim it must show that one or more policy exclusions apply in these circumstances. The policy terms Aviva relied on to decline Mr J’s claim say: “Money.. We will pay up to £5,000 for any one claim. We will not pay for: ..money left in an unattended vehicle” In his complaint to Aviva, Mr J said his car was locked when he entered the tyre shop. He said the shop/cabin was a few yards from where his car was parked and the door to the cabin was open. Because of this he disputes that his car was left ‘unattended’. Mr J’s policy terms and conditions don’t give a definition for what ‘unattended’ means. I acknowledge his view that this term doesn’t apply here, given his proximity to the car when the theft took place. But the approach our service takes is to consider whether, having left his car, Mr J was in a position to intervene or to deter a thief. I don’t think he was. I say this because he described how he went into the tyre shop/cabin and was in there for several minutes talking to a mechanic. Even if the door to the cabin/shop was open and it was close to his car, it’s clear Mr J didn’t notice a theft had taken place until he exited the cabin/shop. His witness statement said he only noticed his car boot and door were open when he came out. If Mr J’s car was ‘attended’ I think it’s unlikely this could have happened unnoticed. Based on this information I don’t think it was unreasonable for Aviva to decline cover for the money Mr J lost based on its policy exclusion for an unattended vehicle.

-- 2 of 5 --

I’ve thought about the other exclusion term Aviva relied on to decline Mr J’s claim. The policy terms under section two, point number four on page 21 say: “Specific Exclusions.. We will not pay for: Theft of any item from an unattended vehicle unless violence and force are used to enter the vehicle. Items must be concealed from sight and/or locked in the boot or glove box.” As above I’m satisfied that Mr J’s vehicle was unattended at the time of the theft. In these circumstances there are two requirements for cover to apply. The first is that violence and force must have been used to enter the vehicle. The approach our service takes here is that the use of force and violence doesn’t necessarily result in damage. Force can be interpreted as some form of action or energy being applied to something. So, a thief opening Mr J’s car door constitutes force. It’s not known how Mr J’s car was accessed but he maintains it was locked, and that he still had the key. In which case the indication is that entry was gained in a way that was not customary i.e. not by using the key. Mr J contends that he was targeted by thieves who deflated his tyre and gained access to his car using an ‘emulator’ device. He said the police officer he originally spoke to thought that an emulator had been used to access the car. In addition, he said the police had identified a car registration plate that had followed Mr J from the bank. Mr J said the tyre shop owner confirmed a specialist device was used to deflate his tyre. He said the owner had seen further instances of this device being used and had some of these devices in his possession. Based on this information the indication is that Mr J was targeted by thieves who overcame the locking system on his car by unnatural means. Strictly speaking ‘violence’ may not have been used in the theft. But by overcoming the locking mechanism in a way that was not customary, I think this can reasonably be interpreted to mean that both force and violence were used. I haven’t seen evidence to show what Aviva did to investigate whether the theft happened in the way Mr J said it did. But I would expect it to carry out a reasonable investigation. For example, Mr J referred to the potential for CCTV footage at the tyre shop. I can’t see if this was investigated. Aviva hasn’t said whether it contacted the police to find out what it thought had happened. Similarly, it can be possible to obtain information from key fobs and a car’s computer to see if this aligns with the description of events. From the information provided by Aviva I can’t see that it investigated these points. The second requirement of the policy exclusion Aviva relied on is that the items must be concealed from sight and/or locked in the boot or glove box. In his witness statement Mr J confirmed that he placed all the items including the cash in a sports bag. I think this reasonably shows that the items were ‘concealed from sight’ and not left out on display. So, Aviva can’t reasonably rely on this part of the exclusion to decline Mr J’s claim. Having considered all the evidence and having applied my remit to decide what’s ‘fair and reasonable’ in these circumstances, I don’t think it’s fair and reasonable for Aviva to rely on the policy term it has to decline Mr J’s claim. This means Aviva must reconsider the claim under the remaining policy terms and conditions without reliance on the exclusions

-- 3 of 5 --

discussed here. I’ve thought about the impact all of this had on Mr J. He was the victim of theft and lost jewellery and watches with a significant monetary value. This was understandably very distressing for him. His home contents policy won’t cover his full loss. But I don’t think Aviva acted fairly when it declined the claim in full for the reasons it gave. This made the situation worse for Mr J causing further distress and inconvenience. In these circumstances it’s reasonable that it pays him compensation. I think £150 is fair. I asked both parties to send me any further comments and information they might want me to consider before I reached a final decision. Mr J responded to say he accepted my provisional decision. Aviva responded to say that it would like to challenge my view that the stolen items were concealed from sight. It said the items were inside a sports bag, but this was left on the back seat of the car where it could be seen. In its response Aviva said that CCTV, police report etc. are typically considered as part of the validation process once a claim is accepted. It said it wouldn’t have waited for this information to be verified when the exclusion it referred to clearly applied. Aviva said that preliminary checks were carried out and noted in its investigation report. But it maintained that the claim was at its early stages when its underwriters agreed that exclusions applied. Had the claim been accepted it said further validation checks would have been performed. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so I’m not persuaded by the comments and information Aviva provided that a change to my provisional findings is warranted. Let me explain. The first point I’ll address is Aviva’s view that Mr J hadn’t complied with its policy terms to conceal the items from sight. The policy terms state: “Items must be concealed from sight and/or locked in the boot or glove box.” Mr J placed all the items that were stolen in a sports bag. The bag was then placed on the back seat of his car. The terms say items must be concealed from sight. The watches and jewellery were concealed from sight as they were placed inside the sports bag. If the items were left on view inside the car Mr J wouldn’t have complied with his policy terms and conditions. But the items weren’t on view, they were concealed from sight as required by his policy. If Aviva intended something else from the term “concealed from sight” it should have made this clear in its policy terms. But I think a reasonable person would interpret this to mean the items must be concealed from sight from someone looking into the car. Aviva’s policy terms include an and/or option. This says the items will be covered if they are locked in the boot or glove box. Alternatively, cover is in place if the items are concealed from sight. It needn’t be both. So, as the items were concealed from sight it means Mr J had reasonably complied with these terms.

-- 4 of 5 --

I acknowledge Aviva comments about its investigation and validation process. I accept what it says about not pursuing the matter further given its underwriters view that exclusions applied. But I don’t think it applied its policy terms fairly. As discussed in my provisional decision, I agree with Aviva that Mr J’s car was left unattended. This means that his claim for the stolen cash is excluded from cover. However, the watches and jewellery were concealed from sight. As explained in my provisional decision I also think force and violence can reasonably be accepted to have been used in the theft. So, I maintain my decision that I don’t think it’s fair that Aviva relied on these exclusions to decline this part of Mr J’s claim. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Aviva Insurance Limited should: • reconsider Mr J’s claim about the loss of his jewellery and watches, without relying on the policy exclusions it did; and • pay Mr J £150 compensation for the distress it caused him. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 21 August 2025. Mike Waldron Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --