Worth Ave Group aka ipadInsurance Denied Theft Claim

polobruce

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 15, 2006
34
0
So I purchased my policy back in 2010 and at the time I looked at the chart similar to what is being displayed here and said oh so they cover theft great...

Well in December 2011 my car was broken into... one of the items that was stolen was my iPad from my center console and navigation system. I thought I was covered..... But Worth Ave Group, aka iPadinsurance.com denied my claim due to no forced entry. In their policy it requires forced entry.

I think that WORTH AVE GROUP needs to do some truth in marketing as their product comparison chart makes it look as though they offer the same coverage as Safeware... YET THEY DON'T

I had security footage showing them getting in my car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4QLvqyqwh8&feature=g-upl&context=G2e8ffb6AUAAAAAAAAAA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgIxN4sERzY&feature=g-upl&context=G2eb4569AUAAAAAAABAA


After showing Worth Ave Group this footage they still denied the claim due to no forced entry.


So I contacted Safeware who said they would approve my claim if I had had a policy with them. Theft is theft and as long as you have a police report you would be covered.


So, although I have send a bunch of people to worth ave group/aka ipadinsurance aka nssi I no longer can as I feel their is a better product with greater coverage out their that won't leave you or me empty handed when / if the time comes when you need to file a claim.
 

Attachments

Pixellated

macrumors 65816
Apr 1, 2008
1,100
0
TBH, leaving your car unlocked with an iPad in the centre console is sort of asking for it. It is like expecting household insurance to cover for a burglary when you left the front door open - they won't.
 
Comment

416049

macrumors 68000
Mar 14, 2010
1,844
2
No offense but if you live your car unlocked i have to agree with them, its your own fault and not theirs... now if the would have been locked and the ipad in a hidden spot it would be a different case...
 
Comment

poloponies

Suspended
May 3, 2010
2,661
1,366
I'm a little skeptical about Safeware having no limitations or restrictions on theft claims. Worth Ave. lays out the process to recover under a claim on their website but Safeware does not. And a phone rep's response to a hypothetical is not really binding. To really compare apples to apples you'd need to see some written confirmation of Safeware's requirements.
 
Comment

RossMc

macrumors 65816
Apr 30, 2010
1,157
20
Newcastle, UK
Did you read the policy agreement before you went with them instead of just the comparison chart? I'm sure it would have stated in the agreement that a theft claim requires forced entry.
 
Comment

poloponies

Suspended
May 3, 2010
2,661
1,366
Did you read the policy agreement before you went with them instead of just the comparison chart? I'm sure it would have stated in the agreement that a theft claim requires forced entry.
From the Worth Ave. Website:

"Do I need to file a police report?

For any and all theft or vandalism claims, a police report is required to file the claim. Damage, natural disaster, and flood claims do not require a police report.

My property was stolen out of my car, is that covered?

Property stolen from a vehicle is covered as long as there is visible evidence of forced entry. An example of this is a smashed window or broken lock. This evidence must be present for the property to be covered."
 
Comment

polobruce

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 15, 2006
34
0
Car wasn't unlocked

I remotely lock my car and my lights flash... Thus it gets captured in video. I looked back and my car was in fact locked remotely the last time I used it.... That's the thing...
 
Comment

polobruce

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 15, 2006
34
0
TRUTH IN ADVERTiSING

My point is that they need to do some truth in advertising. i've referred probably 5 people to Worth... All because they offered better coverage at a better price. With theft being a major sticking point because many other policies don't cover that peril.

If you look at their chart they make it appear as though they have the same coverage for theft... YET THEY DON'T.


You can be skeptical all you want, the fact is I spoke with a safeware underwriter today, told them the situation and they said it would be covered.


I purchased my policy almost 2 years ago so what it says online vs what it said at the time of my policy being in-acted could have changed.

Bottom line is don't have this huge compare us to them button/graphic and then not be honest about what your comparing.

----------

Dictionary term for unattended: "not looked after or cared for"

I also argue that my car was in fact being looked after by the fact that it was under surveillance and being watched and video taped electronically.

The policy makes no statement as to it's requirement for being MANNED or UNMANNED. which is by definition "without the physical presence of people in control: an unmanned spacecraft."


If this is the case then my policy should in fact cover this incident.
 
Comment

utdbear0812

macrumors newbie
Aug 17, 2010
27
0
Why didn't you read your policy? Also, EVERY other insurance company is going to say they would cover the claim in hindsight. Why? Because you'll move your policy to them and they'll get the premium without having to pay the loss.

I also noticed you bought the cheapest insurance available. You get what you pay for.
 
Comment

matttye

macrumors 601
Mar 25, 2009
4,956
30
Lincoln, England
My point is that they need to do some truth in advertising. i've referred probably 5 people to Worth... All because they offered better coverage at a better price. With theft being a major sticking point because many other policies don't cover that peril.

If you look at their chart they make it appear as though they have the same coverage for theft... YET THEY DON'T.


You can be skeptical all you want, the fact is I spoke with a safeware underwriter today, told them the situation and they said it would be covered.


I purchased my policy almost 2 years ago so what it says online vs what it said at the time of my policy being in-acted could have changed.

Bottom line is don't have this huge compare us to them button/graphic and then not be honest about what your comparing.

----------

Dictionary term for unattended: "not looked after or cared for"

I also argue that my car was in fact being looked after by the fact that it was under surveillance and being watched and video taped electronically.

The policy makes no statement as to it's requirement for being MANNED or UNMANNED. which is by definition "without the physical presence of people in control: an unmanned spacecraft."


If this is the case then my policy should in fact cover this incident.
Read what poloponies wrote:

My property was stolen out of my car, is that covered?

Property stolen from a vehicle is covered as long as there is visible evidence of forced entry. An example of this is a smashed window or broken lock. This evidence must be present for the property to be covered."

Not many insurance companies would cover theft of an item from an unlocked car.
 
Comment

poloponies

Suspended
May 3, 2010
2,661
1,366
You're really stretching here. Worth does cover theft, just not every possible permutation. And to be fair, you have no idea of what Safeware's exclusions are, so I think it's a little extreme to suggest that Worth did anything deceptive. It's the nature of insurers to limit your recovery under certain conditions (or unless specific conditions are met). If they had a "no questions asked policy" it's not hard to imagine some ethically-challenged* types to file fraudulent claims and get a second iPad for little more than the cost of the policy.

*Or even unchallenged types. My MIL accused a family member of taking her laptop only to discover weeks later that she'd absent-mindedly placed it in a little-used cabinet.
 
Comment

polobruce

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 15, 2006
34
0
Stolen Keys

So say someone stole your key code and got a key made or stole one of your remotes or a key to your car all of these are not covered as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comment

poloponies

Suspended
May 3, 2010
2,661
1,366
So say someone stole your key code and got a key made or stole one of your remotes or a key to your car all of these are not covered as well.
You're 100% correct. Those would not be covered. However, insurance is not intended to be a substitute for common sense. My house has a detached 2-car garage that has a steel security door with a deadbolt and it's tied into my home security system. Even with that level of security I would never dream of leaving my iPhone or iPad in the car. Perhaps if I was running into the house for a few minutes, but not if it was a few hours or overnight.

And the point of the surveillance camera trained on your car would be what? To relive the experience after the fact? There's no way whatsoever to identify the people on the recording. That seems like an odd thing to do.
 
Comment

matttye

macrumors 601
Mar 25, 2009
4,956
30
Lincoln, England
So say someone stole your key code and got a key made or stole one of your remotes or a key to your car all of these are not covered as well.
In an ideal world nobody would steal and we wouldn't need locks...but they do, and we do. The vast majority of companies won't cover something that wasn't forced. It's too hard to prove you were actually robbed..you could sell your iPad and then report it stolen. Or convince your friends to "steal it" for the camera and give it back later.

Even with the video, they can't bend their own rules.

Sorry man but they're not really being unfair with you, it's just the way it is. What happened to you is ***** but take some responsibility. You can't just leave your car unlocked like that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comment

ThatsMeRight

macrumors 68020
Sep 12, 2009
2,257
124
So say someone stole your key code and got a key made or stole one of your remotes or a key to your car all of these are not covered as well.
Sure, you take an insurrance to protect you from things. I mean, come on, did you really expect them to cover theft when you didn't lock the car doors?

As someone mentioned, if you leave open the front door of your house and someone takes your flatscreen television, do you expect your insurrance company to accept the claim?! Of course not! As with every insurrance: you have to do at least a little bit to avoid these things. In case of stealing a flatscreen TV, make sure you close the door behind you (so it can't be opened from outside).

In case of your car, make sure you lock the car. You are practically inviting the thief:

1) Apparently, the iPad was in clear sight. The thief appears to be walking by by accidant, takes a look in your car and sees the iPad. Only than he opens your car door.
2) You didn't lock the car door. You claim you locked it, but your own footage shows you that you didn't. Perhaps you pushed the wrong button (like unlocking the car): most cars will also flash with their lights if you do that.

So, number one: most companies don't even cover theft from cars if you leave your property in sight (e.g. it shouldn't be directly visible when someone looks in the car).

And even if number one doesn't matter, than we have number two: the car isn't locked. Really 99% of all insurrances regarding theft, require you to at least lock your car door.

Seriously, you are inviting the thief: an iPad that's clearly in sight and the car door isn't locked.

You can't expect them to cover this. This could just as well be a friend of yours, so perhaps you are trying to make quick money.

Than there's a third thing: didn't you install Find my iPad? Why would you ignore a free service that can find your iPad/iPhone/iPod touch through GPS and WiFi networks? Why would you ignore a free service that allows you to send messages and to do a remote wipe?

Really, you did three things here. In case of option one: some companies do cover that. In case of option two: I haven't heard of a company just yet that accepts claims for theft from a car, when the car door is unlocked. Three: you didn't set up Find my iPad. However, the this third one is understandable because it isn't an "obvious" feature.

Oh, and your fourth mistake: you didn't even read the policy. If the policy clearly states that someone actually needs to break in into your car, than a claim like this will never be accepted. No one broke in to your car.

Edit after watching the second vid, I saw both thiefs were actually searching your car. However, that doesn't mean my other arguments are invalid. ;)

Edit 2
"I also argue that my car was in fact being looked after by the fact that it was under surveillance and being watched and video taped electronically."

Well, this is a weak argument. So if someone walks into your home because you left the front door completely open, and your flatscreen TV is stolen, you are going to argue that your house in fact was completely secure because there were two video cameras?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comment

polobruce

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 15, 2006
34
0
really[/b] expect them to cover theft when you didn't lock the car doors?

As someone mentioned, if you leave open the front door of your house and someone takes your flatscreen television, do you expect your insurrance company to accept the claim?! Of course not! As with every insurrance: you have to do at least a little bit to avoid these things. In case of stealing a flatscreen TV, make sure you close the door behind you (so it can't be opened from outside).

In case of your car, make sure you lock the car. You are practically inviting the thief:

1) Apparently, the iPad was in clear sight. The thief appears to be walking by by accidant, takes a look in your car and sees the iPad. Only than he opens your car door.
2) You didn't lock the car door. You claim you locked it, but your own footage shows you that you didn't. Perhaps you pushed the wrong button (like unlocking the car): most cars will also flash with their lights if you do that.

So, number one: most companies don't even cover theft from cars if you leave your property in sight (e.g. it shouldn't be directly visible when someone looks in the car).


THE PROPERTY WAS NOT IN SIGHT... IT WAS IN AN CABINET IN THE CENTER CONSOLE... WHERE DID YOU SEE THAT IT WAS IN SIGHT.


And even if number one doesn't matter, than we have number two: the car isn't locked. Really 99% of all insurrances regarding theft, require you to at least lock your car door.

I AM STILL QUESTIONING #2.... LIKE I SAID THERE ARE MANY WAYS SOMEONE CAN GET INTO A VEHICLE UNFORCED. KEYCODE, STEAL SOMEONES KEY OR REMOTE, HACK MY IPHONE AND UNLOCK VEHICLE VIA ONSTAR OR CALL ONSTAR AND UNLOCK IT WITH STOLEN INFORMATION.


Seriously, you are inviting the thief: an iPad that's clearly in sight and the car door isn't locked.

SERIOUSLY DUDE... GOD I LOVE HOW YOU GUYS CHANGE THE STORY,,,, IT"S LIKE PLAYING TELEPHONE AS A KID.. BY THE END THE STORY IS THAT I STOLE AN IPAD FROM THE APPLE STORE IN JAPAN AND PURCHASED A POLICY UNDER A FACK CREDIT CARD NUMBER AND WONDER WHY I'M NOT GETTING MY CLAIM PAID.... LOL.


THE CENTER CONSOLE IS AN ENCLOSED CABINET IN THE CENTER ARMREST....


YOU HAVE TO PUSH A BUTTON AND LIFT UP THE ARM REST TO GET INSIDE.
IT IS NOT IN PLAN SITE......



You can't expect them to cover this. This could just as well be a friend of yours, so perhaps you are trying to make quick money.


YES IT COULD... AND GUESS WHAT I COULD ALSO HAVE SAID THAT I DROPPED MY IPAD ON THE FLOOR AND ITS DEAD. IN EITHER CASE THAT WOULD BE INSURANCE FRAUD WOULDN'T IT????

I'M SORRY BUT YOU GUYS ARE SIMPLETONS.





Than there's a third thing: didn't you install Find my iPad? Why would you ignore a free service that can find your iPad/iPhone/iPod touch through GPS and WiFi networks? Why would you ignore a free service that allows you to send messages and to do a remote wipe?

I JUST DID A CLEAN REFORMAT CAUSE MY FREAKING ICLOUD ISN'T WORKING PROPERLY.


Really, you did three things here. In case of option one: some companies do cover that. In case of option two: I haven't heard of a company just yet that accepts claims for theft from a car, when the car door is unlocked. Three: you didn't set up Find my iPad. However, the this third one is understandable because it isn't an "obvious" feature.


REALLY, THANKS FOR DOING WHAT I SAID YOU GUYS SEEM TO DO VERY WELL...


Oh, and your fourth mistake: you didn't even read the policy. If the policy clearly states that someone actually needs to break in into your car, than a claim like this will never be accepted. No one broke in to your car.


REGARDING THE POLICY... I'M SURE I READ THE POLICY IT'S NOT THAT LONG...


Edit after watching the second vid, I saw both thiefs were actually searching your car. However, that doesn't mean my other arguments are invalid. ;)

Edit 2
"I also argue that my car was in fact being looked after by the fact that it was under surveillance and being watched and video taped electronically."

Well, this is a weak argument. So if someone walks into your home because you left the front door completely open, and your flatscreen TV is stolen, you are going to argue that your house in fact was completely secure because there were two video cameras?

THEFT IS THEFT... YOU EITHER COVER IT OR DON'T... IF YOU HAVE EXCLUSIONS THAT ANOTHER COMPANY DOESN'T YOU CAN'T COMPARE POLICY'S APPLES FOR APPLES. THAT'S MY ARGUMENT.


IF MY IPAD WAS LEFT ON THE TABLE AT THE STARBUCKS WHILE I WENT TO THE BATHROOM ISN'T THAT UNATTENDED AS WELL? BUT APPARENTLY THAT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN PAID.








There policy simply states "Theft From An Unattended Vehicle" I would argue that the vehicle was attended.. When yan insurance company gives you a break because you have a car alarm, house alarm etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comment

poloponies

Suspended
May 3, 2010
2,661
1,366
THEFT IS THEFT... YOU EITHER COVER IT OR DON'T... IF YOU HAVE EXCLUSIONS THAT ANOTHER COMPANY DOESN'T YOU CAN'T COMPARE POLICY'S APPLES FOR APPLES. THAT'S MY ARGUMENT.
Dude, your "argument" is just plain wrong. You barely know the details of the policy you actually purchased yet you're now the expert on the policy you didn't buy? How do you know they don't have exclusions for other things that Worth covers? YOU DON'T. You're basing 100% of your argument that one company is superior on your specific experience.

And I really don't get the point of the surveillance camera:

•It's obviously not meant to serve as a deterrent.
•You don't have anyone actively monitoring it.
•It can't really provide you with any useful information because it's too far away and is at a very high angle.
 
Comment

ThatsMeRight

macrumors 68020
Sep 12, 2009
2,257
124
THEFT IS THEFT... YOU EITHER COVER IT OR DON'T... IF YOU HAVE EXCLUSIONS THAT ANOTHER COMPANY DOESN'T YOU CAN'T COMPARE POLICY'S APPLES FOR APPLES. THAT'S MY ARGUMENT.


IF MY IPAD WAS LEFT ON THE TABLE AT THE STARBUCKS WHILE I WENT TO THE BATHROOM ISN'T THAT UNATTENDED AS WELL? BUT APPARENTLY THAT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN PAID.








There policy simply states "Theft From An Unattended Vehicle" I would argue that the vehicle was attended.. When yan insurance company gives you a break because you have a car alarm, house alarm etc.
If you left it on a table at the starbucks, in the open, and someone would take it, than I would seriously doubt if WAG would cover it (or any other company).

The vehicle was unattended. The policy clearly states the vehicle must have been breached.

It's not about the fact whether or not it was stolen from you (because with your video you have proven it is), but it is also about HOW it was stolen!

In this case, it was stolen because the door wasn't locked. That means it's your own fault.
If the car door was locked, and your iPad was stolen than that must mean that your car was breached, and thus they would recover the expenses.

If you really thought they would cover the theft because you were so stupid not to lock the car, than you really are stupid and spoiled.

As with any insurrance company, you must at least prove you tried to avoid a thing. In case of this theft: lock the car door.

In case of a fire or something like that, the cause of the fire in your home is important as well: if you were using cheap, unreliable cables and that started the fire, than there's a chance your insurrance company will say you were blameworthy.

Next time, browse a insurrance company's website: it is pretty easy to find this info about that your car must be breached or something like that.
And even better: read your policy. It's very likely you will find that, for example, the insurrance company will not cover damage caused by nucleair war and stuff like that.
 
Last edited:
Comment

azentropy

macrumors 68020
Jul 19, 2002
2,375
1,474
Surprise
Sucks that your iPad was stolen. Sorry to pile on, but I don't see how you can blame the insurance company for denying your claim as it certainly looks like it was able to be easlily stolen due to negligance by you for not locking your doors.

Edit: Is it in the police report that they used a scanner to gain access?
 
Last edited:
Comment

quasinormal

macrumors 6502a
Oct 26, 2007
736
4
Sydney, Australia.
I would definitely fight this.

Why should your claim be refused because the thief used a scanning remote to break into your car?

Supply the scumbag insurance company with the surveillance footage if you can obtain it and point out a break in doesn't always require a breakage.
 
Comment

Ruthjones

macrumors newbie
Sep 5, 2011
14
0
Hmmm, interesting one, last weekend I left my car unlocked in the driveway, it had my handbag on the front passenger seat, they took my iPhone 4, iPod touch, sunglasses, purses, gps, cash etc,
The kicker, my loss is completely covered, under my home contents insurance as portable valuables, yes maybe things are different here in Australia, but it could be worth a phone call to check your other insurance products, I have to pay a $100 excess but am covered up to a $2000 limit, the $100 might teach me a lesson on stupidity, but at least I'm not out of pocket much, and for fun, my insurance does new for old replacement, so I will get new ones, for a lot less than the changeover price if I sold the old things to buy new ones.
They also covered rekeying all my house locks as they took my spare keys too!
Ruth
Eta, they were very nice too, and apparently there is no additional stupidity excess, I asked lol.
 
Comment

matttye

macrumors 601
Mar 25, 2009
4,956
30
Lincoln, England
I would definitely fight this.

Why should your claim be refused because the thief used a scanning remote to break into your car?

Supply the scumbag insurance company with the surveillance footage if you can obtain it and point out a break in doesn't always require a breakage.
You can't fight anything if you don't read the policy terms properly, which this guy didn't.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.