Orihuela Costa (+34) 645 652 688
Local Tariff (From UK) 02037347116

Want us to call you?

We call you!, Give us your tel. number.

×

Archives sergio

Foro seguro de hogar: Robo en plaza de garaje

Sinead E.

Hello, I own a House insured with Mapfre. It is an apartment in a Residential Building governed by the Condominium Act.

Inside the Building there is an opened Community Garage, but you can only access trough the door of the garage that faces the street, and the parking spaces for each neighbour are drawn on the floor.

A few days ago unknown persons entered into the garage and stole two bicycles I had tied to the bars of the window of the façade with a string (after cutting the chain).

The insurer Co. tells me that they will not compensate because the bicycles were not at my home or annex to it, but I see that the policy includes storages or garages located in the same building of the apartment.

Do they have a reason to exclude the loss?

Thank you

Moderator, Sergio Sanguino

Dear Sinead,

In the General Terms of policies it is effectively defined the property insured, and usually the concept of the garage or storage it is included, but read carefully, because it also defines requirements to considered these dependencies included in the definition of the House.

Thus, in most policies of Mapfre it is indicated that they consider Garage to the individually closed and isolated enclosure devoted to park the vehicle, and it is considered Parking to the place located within the Community Facilities, but it should be always individually closed and isolated from the others within that local.

That is, your garage does not meet the requirements to be considered as a part of the Building of our house for not being closed or isolated individually.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards.

Foro seguro de hogar: Robo de joyas

Elisabeth R.

Hello, I own a house insured with Aegon Co. and in Christmas my husband and I took a trip abroad for a week. On the way back we found that the door of the house was forced and the thieves had stolen many electronic objects, clothing and jewellery that I had kept in a box in the bedroom dresser.

The Insurance Co. compensates me the damage to the door and the value of the stolen objects except the jewels which I have insured up to $ 3,000, claiming that as I have been out of the house all week the theft of jewellery is not covered.

Do they have reasons to exclude the loss? Why do they compensate certain things and not others?

Thank you

Moderator, Sergio Sanguino

Good afternoon Elisabeth,

You should review the general terms signed with the CIA, because sometimes, it varies one from another.

The following point is usually included in the warranty of exclusions by theft:

Jewellery are excluded from the guarantee of stealing, if the theft was committed while the house remained uninhabited for more than eighty-four consecutive hours except when permanent housing Jewels are deposited in safes of over 100 kilos weight or recessed.

In this case the CIA should not compensate the theft of jewellery, since you admitted that you have been out of the house, meaning that it has been uninhabited completely, that is, no one has stayed at the property for that time.

The jewels were not in a safe neither, so only in case someone had been sleeping in the house during that period you will be able to claim for the compensation of jewels.

Kind regards.

Foro seguro de hogar: Responsabilidad Civil interna

Sheila W.

Hi, I have an apartment and the Home Insurance is contracted with AXA. The other day my son accidentally threw down the Tablet of our domestic household employee who lives in our house, with such bad luck that it got broken and beyond repair.

We opened a claim against our Insurance for Civil Liability and they indicated that I am not covered as the employee is not third party.

I am not satisfied, because I understand that the only people who have no consideration for Third party are my family, but not a domestic worker who has no family relationship with us.

Am I right? What can I do?

Thank you

Moderator, Sergio Sanguino

Dear Sheila,

We should look at what the policy states in its terms regarding what kind of people are considered as Third Parties, for the purposes of Insurance contracted and regardless of what the law establishes as Third Parties in the Civil Code.

In the policy you have contracted you indicated that “it is considered as a Third Party any person except the spouse of the insured, children, parents or others who live with him in the insured home”.

This means, that for the purposes of Civil Liability coverage contracted, if the housekeeper lives permanently in your home she is not considered as Third Party, so the loss is not covered by the Civil Liability cover.

I hope this helps, kind regards.

Página 1 de 2012345...1020...Última »