BEWARE: MIB’s strict interpretations – car

The responsibilities and rights of each party depends on the interpretation of clauses within a contract.  Interpretations depend on the party.  In the case of consumer affairs much depends on the interpretation of ‘a normal consumer’.  If this is not taken into consideration then the consumer would be short changed and would be denied of a fair deal.  That is what happened when MIB interpreted tightly a clause within the policy.

A consumer took an insurance to cover the contents of the car he was travelling with abroad.  When he was in Milan, he parked his car in a private parking covered by cctv and a security guard.  He placed his GIS and mobile in the car pocket and left.  The mobile was left behind as it had no charge.  On returning he found his car opened and the GIS and mobile missing.  He filed a report with the local police.

On returning to Malta, he filed a claim with the insurance.  Mediteranean Insurance Brokers (MIB) did not accept his claim as the car ‘was left unattended’.  After contacting MIB it turned out that they did not accept his claim due to the tight interpretation given to the word left ‘unattended’.

MIB contends that in spite the consumer took all the precautions which a normal careful consumer usually takes, the car was still unattended.  It turned out that for MIB for a car to be attended to requires the consumer to be seeing the car.

This is a ridiculous interpretation.  We contended that taking their interpretation, it means that a consumer whose claim would be accepted must be working in conjunction with the thief.  Otherwise no normal consumer would let someone steal the contents of the car before his very eyes!

Thus consumers BEWARE: this clause in real terms does not cover you!!   If you were taking an insurance policy to cover the contents of the car, think twice as you might be putting your money down the drain.