A video producer who lost $90,000 of stock in a warehouse theft has failed to win a dispute over the size of his payout.

He lodged a claim with Zurich saying his rented business premises and a locked storage container were broken into at night, and there were obvious entry marks on a door frame.

The claimant was in the process of moving location due to financial difficulties, and in the fortnight before the theft about 30 to 40 people came through the warehouse to inspect items he had put up for sale.

He had not changed the code to a lockbox containing keys to the premises for at least six months, and at least 60 people used the code, including some potential buyers of sale items.

In the week before the theft, the claimant disconnected a movement sensor and removed a CCTV camera as he prepared to leave the warehouse. An alarm system had not worked since 2015 and a security door was often left unlocked because it was difficult to use.

Zurich found insufficient evidence of a forcible and violent break-in, and paid the claimant $20,000 – the business policy’s limit for “theft of property without forcible entry”.

The policyholder took the matter to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority seeking the full $70,000 sum insured for theft.

But AFCA has ruled in favour of the insurer.

“I acknowledge the loss was genuine. However, as he has not shown forcible and violent entry was involved, the policy limits the benefits payable,” AFCA’s ombudsman said.

“There is a reasonable basis to conclude that the theft was committed by someone using a key, given the number of people who knew the lockbox code.

“The complainant says he left the security door unlocked 50% of the time, and could not recall if he locked it before the theft occurred.”

The video producer told Zurich’s investigator he found bolts were missing from inside a metal security door’s locking mechanism, and he later found them on the floor and showed them to police.

But AFCA says there is no evidence that, had the deadlock been disassembled, it was done with an implement rather than by hand, which would not involve violent force.

Zurich said the complainant told its inspector that “with not even forcing it ... you could push the door frame to the left, and the door just opens”.

A loss adjuster who attended the premises about a month after the November 2021 theft found no obvious signs of forced entry or evidence that supported the producer’s version of events.

Photos provided to AFCA by the producer were taken more than a year after the theft and a video more than three years later. The ombudsman agrees with Zurich’s loss adjuster that “what is depicted may be wear and tear rather than inflicted damage”.

The loss adjuster also said they saw a grey garage roller door during their visit in December 2021, whereas the door in the photos appeared to be a cream colour.

See the ruling here. 

From the latest Insurance News magazine: The ticking time bombs under our kitchen sinks, and how to stop them exploding