Hollard and PPS's incongruous claiming rules

I am insured by PPS, which is underwritten by Hollard. One of the items insured is my mobile iphone. PPS and Hollard have been merrily debitting money from my account for this insrued iphone for months. My iphone was recently ****** and I reported it to my iphone service provider, which blocked the phone and gave me an ITC no. I also opened a ******** case with the police for the ****** iphone, which required an IMEI/**** number for the phone, which is the iphone's identity number with Apple, the item that is insured. I submitted the ITC no and case no. to Hollard and they refuse to process my claim in the absence of a contract from my iphone service provider because they require proof of the existence of a contract with iphone service provider - note: the insured item is a phone and not a contract with the iphone service provider. How would I have an ITC no. if I did not have a contract? How would I have opened a ******** case in the absence of an IMEI/**** & ITC no. if I did not have a contract? Why did Hollard not request this proof right at the ouset of issuing the contract to me. This rule is incongruous. If there was no contract, then they should reimburse all the premiums.