Common Reasons Why Claims For Vandalism Are Turned Down

Some vandalism claims are refused despite the scope of potential commercial property insurance coverage for certain acts of vandalism. In many instances, this boils down to insurance companies seeking certain guarantees from business owners to reduce the danger of damage and theft. For example, if a firm has installed monitoring and security systems, suitable lighting, and sufficient locks, the insurance provider is more likely to fund the claim. However, despite these efforts, insurance companies may still incorrectly deny or delay genuine claims or demand increased coverage limits or deductibles.

Even if an insurer is prepared to cover theft and vandalism-related damages, it may impose a number of policy limits and exclusions to decrease what is actually covered. This frequently results in the underpayment of legitimate theft and vandalism claims. These claims are frequently refused or underpaid due to the following factors:

Cannot provide evidence of the vandalism or break-in: To qualify for coverage, it is not enough to just demonstrate that objects are missing from the premises. As with any other type of property damage, the insurance company will require photographic documentation, video surveillance, shattered windows, doors, locks, etc.

Does not know the worth of claimed items: When assigning a financial amount to each stolen or damaged item, insurance providers may differ from policyholders. Possessing considerable evidence, such as receipts and credit card records, to demonstrate the size of the losses is of great assistance.

Insurers may contest a claim if a commercial property owner fails to do preventative maintenance and leaves the building vulnerable to crimes of opportunity. As indicated previously, failing to minimize the risk of theft or vandalism by preventative measures such as installing adequate security cameras and replacing damaged deadbolts might result in the denial of a claim.