Do not invalidate the fire insurance

Do not invalidate the fire insurance

I think that's a very strange case, but it just shows how important it is to read the fine print. If you ignore the terms of the policy, your policy may become invalid.

In this case, it was a condition of fire insurance that the alarm SECURITY was maintained and monitored. The times for the insured were difficult, and he had maintained the security warning, and since the ARC had not been paid for 6 months, they stopped monitoring the site.
It was a furniture manufacturer and suffered losses of more than £ 750,000.

The case went to the Supreme Court, the judge only felt sorry for the company's directors and was not pleased to decide that a third party company, as was the condition of the combined insurance, should control the alarm. The insurers did not have to worry about the damage.

There are often conditions that are related to our policies and are directly related to the risk. We have to make sure that our vehicles have a valid MOT, so that the directive does not become invalid. We need to notify the insurance company when we get a ticket, but in my opinion you do not have to tell them if you choose the Speed ??Awareness course instead of paying the fine.

I just found a case in front of the Insurance Ombudsman in which an insurance company terminated the insurance and returned all the premiums because the policyholder unconsciously exceeded the value of the "valuables" in his insurance. They had insured the contents of their home for £ 60,000, but there was a clause stating that the value of the valuables should not exceed 66%.
They had to take their daughter to a hospital and, while they were away, the thieves hit the merchandise and became owners of the property of £ 70,000. In assessing the claim, the claims adjuster calculated the value when the valuables in the house exceeded £ 40,000. Normally, the claims would be "averaged" to reflect the lack of insurance, but the insurance company stated in that case that the lack of insurance nullified the insurance. As I said, this case is before the Ombudsman as I write.

Let's return to the present case in which a fire safety claim was rejected as a safety alert and the monitoring was canceled. Our clients run a hotel and there is always someone at the reception. So when the fire alarm was activated, someone was always on duty to respond. We arrived at the time when the annual contract with the ARC [monitoring station] had to be renewed. The hotel manager wanted to cancel it, as it was considered an unnecessary problem. I told him I agreed, but I asked him to ask his insurers if they had any objections. Insurers have confirmed; Surveillance was a condition of politics.

In the insurance policy, there is often a clause that the fire alarm is maintained in accordance with British standards. It would be interesting to know if a similar claim was rejected because the fire alarm was not adequately maintained.