Rejecting claim due to a Vague clause in schedule.

I have both personal and business vehicle insurance with this company. It was made clear upfront what car will be used for and during the first 6months it had probably had 4 different drivers as regular drivers. If you sign up they normally run through the terms and conditions specifically about drivers. wording might be off but they allow other driver to use the car pending they are older than 25 years have drivers licence if under 25 years etc.... BUT NOWHERE do they say if you have an agreement to return the vehicle then sorry we cant cover you?? well that is the BS that i am being fed right now.

15 April driver had to return vehicle, 3 days of car not being returned with little to no response from the driver i was forced to lay the charge. 17 April i contact ousurance to explain the situation and im advised to report the car as ******. the evening of the 17th I report car as ****** (but legal term is driving without owner permission) as i handed over the keys, (take note the charge will change to ****** if the car is not recovered).

On the 23 April Outsurance responds that my claim is rejected. Why ? this was their response (This policy does not cover legal liability, loss or damage directly or indirectly caused by: i. breach of contract or agreement; “) This is EXTREMELY VAGUE how does one interpret this?? So i am baffled how is this the reason? i had a contract with the driver to assure we understand the terms between owner and driver. Yes the driver breached an agreement by not returning my car but how is it that my claim is rejected on that bases? i didnt state he will pay for my car if he *****s my car? i didnt state that if you hand the keys over to someone else he is liable to pay if car is not returned?? its as if i should not have had any agreement, its as if i should have just handed over keys?? who does that ? having no contract is irresponsible and stupid, having no clause advising a driver he will be reported if he doesnt return the owners vehicle is STUPID but now outsurance is trying to get out of processing this claim based on that clause???? Just like i have a damage my car clause... the driver will be responsible to repair damages he causes again if the driver refuses as damage is extremely hi you again saying you would reject my claim?

My car should be covered full comprehensive cover regardless of how my car was ******, burnt, written off etc. The contract i have is with the driver how i remedy any breach i lay a charge at police station if car is not returned or go to court if it moneys owed this has NOTHING to do with outsurance. My "contract" with outsurance is between me and outsurance.

I unfortunately will not recommend these ****** to anyone i was BEGGED to insure with them but i now im so disappointed i did.

Also let me add that my insurance went up by 15%.... i requested feedback as to why this is the case? the value of car didnt go up? i never claimed in the past 12months yet insurance went up by that much??