Tim White of Marquis & Lord, reports on the findings of recent consultations with insurance claims professionals.

A recent straw poll of Loss Adjusters (who work for insurance companies) and Loss Assessors (who work for claimants) has shown that there is an increase in claims being refused because of policy non-conformance.

Key examples, pertinent to the AGS businesses, relate to site and plant security where vandalism or thefts result from poor security.  In addition, lock types that do not conform to insurance policy requirements are also causing claims to be refused.

This has implications for the industry in many areas but particularly if vandalism results in loss of material giving rise to pollution, where the clean up costs can have far reaching consequences.  Refusal of a claim which would have been covered as a legitimate sudden and un-intended escape may be refused if the causal step involved non compliance with policy demands relative to site or plant security.

The solution is simple:

• check policy wording to determine if lock types or minimum security measures are specified;
• if minimum requirements are specified, check to see if the company complies with them; and
• if possible, go a step further than the minimum requirements.

The moral of the story is, do not get caught out because of a low cost lock.