Not Fully Occupied

Bev, now being single again, had been very stressed by the break-up of her relationship with Bill. At the urging of her neighbour, Sally, she decided to spend a fortnight in Bali. She thought it would do her good, and apparently it did. She met Doug while in Bali and immediately fell in love with him, or so she said.

After the holiday romance, the two became inseparable and decided they would extend their holiday. Following receipt of an email Bev sent to Sally telling her of these events, Sally (who by this stage had become an insurance expert) advised her she should inform the insurance company that continued to insure the home (which had, by this stage, been rebuilt) that she was on an extended holiday and the property was unoccupied.

Allsafe, who begrudgingly settled the fire claim, told her she would not be covered if the property were unoccupied for more than 60 days. Bev was not sure how to deal with this problem because she and Doug did not know when they would be back. Sally had the smart idea that she and Steve could spend an occasional night in Bev’s property and keep an eye on things in case the superseded Bill made another one of his unannounced visits.

Sure enough, someone with a similar description to Bill broke into the house and damaged it extensively.

Allsafe also refused this claim (the claims manager was itching to do so) on the basis the building had been unoccupied for more than 60 days. When Sally said she and Steve had stayed in the property for one night, the insurance company still refused to pay the claim because it put a special definition of “unoccupancy” in the policy, meaning that someone had to “live in it”.

Unfortunately for Bev, the Panel had no alternative other than to uphold the insurance company’s submission.