Shop denied payout over chainsaw thief's non-violent crime
A retailer has lost a claim dispute over the theft of a chainsaw from its store during trading hours.
The small business, represented by its insurance broker, lodged a claim in September last year.
But insurer Blue Zebra rejected it, saying there was no forcible entry or threat of harm to any employee, and the policy excluded shoplifting. There was no CCTV footage of the theft.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority agrees the theft was shoplifting, defined as stealing while “appearing to be a legitimate customer”.
“The thief entered during business hours through the customer entrance and took the goods without confrontation,” the authority said. “It is reasonable to assume a person entering through the customer entrance is a legitimate customer unless there is some aspect of their demeanour and behaviour indicating otherwise.”
The policy covered five kinds of theft involving forced entry, armed hold-up or other violent acts, but AFCA says it is clear none of these occurred.
| More from AFCA: Couple run out of options in bid for ring payout |
There was an extension to cover theft without forcible and violent entry, with a limit of $20,000 for any one event.
However, an exclusion stated: “We will not pay for theft involving shoplifting.”
“Other than the complainant saying the thief ‘walked into the shop … grabbed a chainsaw and run away [sic]’, there is no information about the demeanour and behaviour of the thief prior to exiting the store,” AFCA’s ombudsman said.
“Up until the point it became clear the thief was leaving the store without paying for the chainsaw, they appeared to be a legitimate customer.
“There is no compelling information to show they appeared to be anything other than a legitimate customer. Therefore, I am satisfied the theft of the chainsaw was shoplifting.”
See the ruling here.