Refusal to Pay Compensation for Vehicle Theft Under Comprehensive Insurance – When the Insurer Is Right and When They Are Not

Having your car stolen is serious enough on its own. When the insurer then refuses to pay out under the comprehensive policy, the situation becomes doubly difficult. Refusals are not always justified, however – insurers sometimes rely on grounds that, on closer legal analysis, turn out to be questionable or without foundation. It is worth knowing when a refusal is lawful and when it can be effectively challenged.

The grounds on which an insurer may refuse to pay
Absence of a complete set of keys – when this is a valid ground for refusal
Vehicle documents in the car at the time of theft
Inadequate vehicle security
Discrepancy between the circumstances of the incident and the insurer’s findings
Discontinuance of criminal proceedings and the right to compensation
Expired roadworthiness certificate as a ground for refusal
What to do after receiving a refusal
Practical examples from our caseload
FAQ

The Grounds on Which an Insurer May Refuse to Pay

A comprehensive insurance contract is a voluntary agreement whose terms are set by the General Terms and Conditions of Insurance (OWU). The scope of cover, exclusions from liability and the insured’s obligations all follow from the OWU, not from statute as is the case with compulsory third-party liability insurance. This means the insurer can effectively rely on exclusions in the OWU – but only where they are lawful and have been formulated unambiguously.

OWU provisions that are ambiguous or unclear must be interpreted in favour of the insured – this follows from Article 385 § 2 of the Civil Code. Provisions that conflict with mandatory legal rules or constitute unfair contractual terms are ineffective, even if the insured signed them.

Every refusal should be based on a specific OWU clause that the insured failed to comply with. A refusal without an identified basis, or one resting on an unclear clause, can be effectively challenged.

Absence of a Complete Set of Keys – When This Is a Valid Ground for Refusal

The requirement to produce a complete set of keys after a theft is a standard OWU provision used by many insurers. Its purpose is to verify that a theft genuinely took place – providing keys to a third party or losing them might suggest the owner was involved in a staged theft.

A refusal based on the absence of a complete set of keys is only justified, however, where the OWU expressly and unambiguously provides for such an exclusion. If the vehicle was factory-fitted with only one key or remote – which happens when buying used vehicles from the primary or secondary market – the insured should be able to demonstrate this with documentation from a dealer or service centre. In such a situation, a refusal based on the “absence of the second key” is unfounded.

If one of the keys was previously lost or stolen, the insurer should be notified immediately and the immobiliser codes reprogrammed – failure to do so may be treated as a breach of obligations under the OWU.

Vehicle Documents in the Car at the Time of Theft

Some insurers include OWU clauses excluding liability where the vehicle’s documents were in the car at the time of theft. The argument is that a thief can more easily register the vehicle if they have its documents.

The effectiveness of such clauses is questioned in case law – courts assess whether the exclusion is proportionate and whether there is a genuine causal link between leaving the documents in the car and the loss. If the theft was violent (for example, a robbery) or the documents were in a locked console or glove compartment rather than in plain sight, the insurer’s argument may prove insufficient.

Inadequate Vehicle Security

OWU provisions may require the insured to use specified anti-theft measures – an alarm, immobiliser, GPS or tracking system. For higher-value vehicles, these requirements can be extensive. Failure to comply with security requirements is one of the most common grounds for refusal and is generally harder to challenge than other grounds.

It is worth checking in each case, however, whether the requirement was formulated clearly and unambiguously in the OWU and whether the insured had a genuine opportunity to read it before the contract was concluded. If the insurance agent did not inform the insured of specific security requirements, or if the provision is buried in the documentation in a way that makes it difficult to find, its effectiveness can be challenged.

Leaving the keys in the ignition or in another easily accessible location in the vehicle is treated as gross negligence and constitutes a valid ground for refusal regardless of the OWU terms.

Discrepancy Between the Circumstances of the Incident and the Insurer’s Findings

Insurers scrutinise the circumstances of every theft claim carefully, particularly for high-value vehicles. If the claims handler’s findings – based on CCTV footage, witness statements or GPS data – contradict the insured’s account, the insurer may refuse to pay, alleging an attempt to fraudulently obtain compensation or the provision of false information.

The insured is obliged to inform the insurer of the circumstances of the incident truthfully. Deliberately providing false information releases the insurer from the obligation to pay – this follows from Article 815 of the Civil Code. If, however, inaccuracies result from the insured’s incomplete knowledge or mistaken assessment of the situation rather than bad faith, this should be explained to the insurer precisely.

Discontinuance of Criminal Proceedings and the Right to Compensation

The discontinuance of criminal proceedings due to failure to identify the perpetrator does not deprive the insured of the right to compensation under comprehensive insurance – provided the incident itself has been confirmed as a theft. A decision to discontinue proceedings due to failure to identify the perpetrator is in fact a standard document submitted during the claims handling process.

The position is different where criminal proceedings were discontinued due to the absence of elements of a criminal offence – meaning law enforcement established that a theft did not in fact take place. Such a decision may form the basis for a refusal to pay, although the insured has the right to challenge the findings of the criminal proceedings in separate civil proceedings.

Expired Roadworthiness Certificate as a Ground for Refusal

Some OWU provisions exclude the insurer’s liability where the vehicle did not have a valid roadworthiness certificate at the time of the theft. The effectiveness of such clauses is debatable – the absence of a valid technical inspection generally has no causal connection with a vehicle theft. Courts assess such provisions inconsistently, but the trend in case law moves towards treating them as ineffective insofar as they relate to risks unconnected with the vehicle’s technical condition.

What to Do After Receiving a Refusal

After receiving a refusal, the first step is to read the reasoning and the OWU basis cited carefully. The next step is to lodge an appeal with the insurer – in writing, with detailed reasons and documentation undermining the grounds for the refusal. The insurer is required to consider the appeal and provide a written response.

If the appeal produces no result, a complaint may be made to the Financial Ombudsman or the matter referred to court. In court proceedings, the court independently assesses whether the OWU provision forming the basis for the refusal is effective and whether the insurer applied it correctly.

Practical Examples from Our Caseload

A client’s insurer refused to pay theft compensation on the grounds that a complete set of keys had not been produced. Documentation from the authorised dealer’s service centre confirmed, however, that the vehicle had been factory-fitted with only one remote from new. The firm presented this documentation to the insurer and, when the refusal was maintained, referred the matter to court. The court awarded full compensation together with statutory interest, finding the insurer’s refusal to be unfounded.

A second client’s insurer refused theft compensation, arguing the vehicle did not have the anti-theft security measures required by the OWU. The firm gathered documentation confirming the installation of all required security measures – workshop invoices, an alarm system installation certificate and confirmation of immobiliser activation. On the basis of this evidence, the court found the insurer’s refusal to be unjustified and awarded the compensation due.

FAQ

Can the insurer refuse to pay if the police discontinued the criminal proceedings? It depends on the grounds for discontinuance. Discontinuance due to failure to identify the perpetrator does not affect the right to compensation – it is a standard document in the claims handling process. The position is different where discontinuance followed from a finding that no criminal offence had taken place – that is, that the theft did not occur.

What should I do if I lost one of the keys before the theft? The loss of a key should be reported to the insurer immediately and – if the OWU requires it – the immobiliser system and remote should be reprogrammed. Failure to do so may be treated as a breach of contractual obligations. Losing a key does not automatically deprive the insured of the right to compensation if the OWU does not expressly provide for such an exclusion.

Can I claim interest on compensation paid late? Yes. The insurer is required to pay compensation within 30 days of the claim being reported, or – where clarifying the circumstances requires more time – within 14 days of those circumstances being clarified, subject to a maximum of 90 days from the report. Statutory interest for late payment applies to any delay beyond these deadlines.

Is it worth appealing against the insurer’s decision on my own? An appeal to the insurer is the first step and is worth submitting even without legal assistance – particularly where the refusal rests on a readily refutable ground (for example, the absence of a key that never existed). In more complex cases, where the OWU must be analysed for the effectiveness of an exclusion clause or where the insurer’s factual findings need to be challenged, legal assistance significantly improves the prospects of a favourable outcome.

Contact Us

A refusal to pay theft compensation under a comprehensive policy is a decision that requires scrutiny – both as to the legal basis cited by the insurer and as to whether the OWU provisions were correctly applied.

It pays to be properly prepared: both in knowing what you can claim and in having a clear strategy.

We handle cases for drivers in Poznań and across the Wielkopolska region, with in-person and online consultations available for clients elsewhere in Poland.

Adwokat Marta Krzyżanowicz and Adwokat Michalina Koligot Law Firm “Adwokat dla Kierowców w Poznaniu”

ul. Adama Mickiewicza 18/3, 60-834 Poznań

tel. +48 795 001 536 · +48 531 335 713

kontakt@adwokatdlakierowcy.pl · www.adwokatdlakierowcy.pl

This text is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case requires individual analysis.

Vehicle Theft