Burglary Claim, Undefined Policy Clause, Renter's Insurance

[derickg]

Live in Texas

I live with my bf, we were recently burglarized, my name is on the renter's policy, his is not. Several items were taken, some of mine, a few of his (a TV and a camera).

Ins Co will not cover his property as his name isn't on the policy.

First clause under "Property Covered" of my policy reads:
"We cover personal property owned or used by an insured at the residence premises."

This statement and its inclusion of the word "used" seems to redeem my claim to the property in question: I was a habitual user of both items, I am the insured and obviously the items were taken from my property. I was never asked if I used the property.

Is there any merit to this argument? I've read my policy from front to back, there is no definition of the word "used" in the policy.

After bringing this to the InsCo's attention I was greeted with stammering, and feeble attempts to explain the language in their favor, was eventually told by my rep I had a "solid argument" and she would "go to underwriting" for explanation.

The next emailed correspondence was left-field in nature and simply outlined the definitions of "you" and "yours" as it related to my policy and reiterated the denial of my bf's property on the claim. Feeling this response hadn't addressed my initial inquiry, I asked them to please directly explain how the inclusion of the "used" clause is ignored as to how it relates to the denial of claiming the 2 items.

The subsequent response (can't remember it verbatim):

We appreciate your persistence but the renter's policy is not intended to cover roomer's or boarders. We are not changing our stance on the claim.


WTF! I'm not renting out rooms here! Why can't they show me, or give a detailed explanation of the phrase in question? They continue to beat around the bush which gives me cause to feel I might be on to something. I feel their vague responses are some kind of tactic to wear me down to submit to their refusal of coverage.

This is my first time dealing with an insurance claim. Am I crazy? Not sure what my next step should be. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[You Are Guilty]

The intent of the language is clear - the insurance is to cover "your" (the insured's) possessions. Covering possessions that someone else owns means you can move in with Bill Gates with nothing more than the clothes on your back, insure yourself with a minimum policy, then someone have coverage for all of Bill's worldly possessions merely because you sometimes watch his TV?

However, it certainly could have been worded more clearly. Given that they insurance company drafted it, you might have a shot at forcing them to cover the extra stuff (assuming you can prove that it was actually "used" by you, which likely would require, at a minimum, your BF not only prove ownership, but also that he has no other residences). The question then becomes, how much time, money and energy do you want to spend fighting them on this issue?

 

[derickg]

If intent and careful emphasis is placed on the idea of "you" and "your" here, why include the distinction "owned or used" in any coverage statements at all? Why not simply say owned? What scenario are they trying to clarify by including the language? This is what I'd like explained by the Ins Co.

The phrase as it is written implies coverage to items used by an insured. Is it their oversight? Who knows. But it is in my policy.

The question then becomes, how much time, money and energy do you want to spend fighting them on this issue?

I guess that's an answer I'm looking for here too. The items were practically new, worth around $2000. For us, not chump change. Is this amount worth fighting for? If I decided to bring in some kind of legal representation would it come out a wash, or would I be in the red regardless?

Thanks again.

 

[JustAPal00]

Her's the problem you have. When you are using your BF's camera, it is covered. If you went on vacation with your parents and took the BF's camera but not the BF, the camera would be covered if it were stolen. Because it was stolen from you and you were using it. When you live with him, in effect you give it back to him every tiome you are done using it. He was in possesion of his belongings and so they were stolen from him.

 

[ecmst12]

Bottom line, if you wanted his stuff to be covered, you needed to add him to the policy as soon as he moved in, or he should have gotten his own.

 

[You Are Guilty]

As someone above noted, "used"/"using" refers to the active form of the verb, that is, "in use". So if someone stole the TV while you were watching it, you might have an argument. It merely being present in the unit during the burglary is possession, not "use".

(I can also speculate that the word "used" was also meant to encompass items in your home which are "yours" but which you do not technically hold title to. Something like a "rent-to-own" appliance for example.)

As for whether it's worth the effort, no one can answer that for you. But we can tell you that if the items were (demonstrably) $2k brand new, the second they were taken out of the box, they were no longer worth $2k. Once they were used even once, their value dropped even further. Not knowing the condition of the equipment stolen, it's entirely possible that it's worth no more than $500 or $1000 (and it's still up to you to prove that value).

On the other hand, small claims court filing fees are pretty cheap...

 

[derickg]

JustAPal and You are Guilty, this is the answer I've been looking for from my Insurance Co. Makes perfect sense when explained. Thanks to you both for your advice and for helping me avoid a pointless legal battle!

 

[ecmst12]

He's your roommate. Just like in any other roommate situation, each person needs their own policy for their stuff to be protected. If he was a NON romantic roommate, would you expect him to be covered on your policy?