Disappointed

I am lodging this complaint regarding the rejection of my insurance claim with King Price and the response I received after disputing the repudiation.

I insured my belongings under a comprehensive portable possessions policy, with the reasonable understanding that my insured items would be covered against loss or theft, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

My cellphone and smar****ch were placed in a carry bag and concealed in the boot of my vehicle while I attended a function. Upon returning to my vehicle, I discovered that the items were no longer where I had left them. I subsequently lodged claims for the missing items.

My claim was rejected on the basis that there were no visible signs of forced or violent entry into the vehicle. I was advised that, for items ****** from an unoccupied vehicle, two requirements must be met: the items must be concealed as prescribed by the policy, and there must be visible signs of forced entry.

My concern is that this requirement effectively leaves me without cover in circumstances where my insured belongings are ****** from a vehicle without obvious physical damage or forced entry. In this instance, the items were not left openly or negligently exposed; they were concealed in the boot of the vehicle.

I understand that insurers have policy terms, conditions and exclusions. However, I believe the application of this provision raises a serious concern about what a consumer reasonably understands when purchasing comprehensive cover. If the policy does not cover the loss of insured possessions simply because there is no visible forced entry, despite the belongings having been concealed, then I question the extent to which the cover provides meaningful protection against theft or unexplained loss in these circumstances.

What is particularly disappointing is that I was not expecting to have to prove forced entry when I had taken reasonable precautions to conceal the items. A ***** does not necessarily have to break a window or damage a vehicle to ***** something. The absence of visible damage does not, in itself, mean that a theft or loss did not occur.

I would also like to make it clear that my experience with King Price's advisors has been very positive. The advisors I have dealt with have been extremely helpful, professional and efficient, and I am genuinely grateful for the service I received from them. Unfortunately, the handling and outcome of this claim have overshadowed that positive experience.

This policy has ultimately left a very bitter taste in my mouth. As a paying customer, I expected my comprehensive insurance to provide meaningful protection when I suffered a loss. Instead, I have been left feeling that the cover I purchased does not protect me in circumstances where I reasonably believed it would.

I would therefore encourage King Price to reconsider its approach to such claims and, more importantly, to ensure that consumers are made very clearly aware at the point of purchasing comprehensive cover that theft from an unoccupied vehicle may not be covered unless there are visible signs of forced entry, even where the insured items were concealed.

Sadly, this experience has also made me reconsider my relationship with King Price. I will be starting the process of looking for alternative insurance that I feel places greater emphasis on protecting and caring for its clients when they experience a genuine loss.

I hope King Price takes this complaint seriously, not only in relation to my individual claim, but also in considering whether customers fully understand the limitations of the cover they are purchasing.

Disappointed, but still hopeful that this feedback will be taken constructively.