Violent Forcible Entry or Exit — A Robbery Affair

Macally Air-Alarm1 SecurityMan D.I.Y. Wireless Home Alarm System Kit

Macally Air-Alarm1 SecurityMan D.I.Y. Wireless Home Alarm System Kit

Whenever we issue any theft or burglary related coverage it is a norm to have “VIOLENT AND FORCIBLE ENTRY” as a condition before any such loss is covered. Whether you are an insurance consumer or practitioner, including agents it is paramount important that you have a good grasp of what is deemed violent and forcible entry into or out of the specified premises — and this condition of cover is very commonly found in HouseOwner, Householder and Burglary policies….. in respect of theft-related losses.


We have a video that shows just that…. This thief knew the police would take a long time to come to the rescue, so he took out his axe and diligently work out his skills in breaking the bullet-proof glass pane… Slowly but surely!


  Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011

Related Posts with Thumbnails

8 comments for “Violent Forcible Entry or Exit — A Robbery Affair

  1. March 4, 2011 at 20:19

    A really tool dude. Possesses trait of a great robber and hi, a real good demo of what’s violent and forcible entry!

  2. March 1, 2011 at 16:49

    [New Post] Violent Forcible Entry or Exit — A Robbery Affair – via #twitoaster

    • Andrew Wong
      July 1, 2011 at 16:32

      Even if there is no breakage to the premises, say when a robber forced the property owner into his building (when the insured just opened the door), I would construe it as violent and forcible entry. The burglary policy should therefore, triggers.

      • July 2, 2011 at 21:39

        Agreed it is a norm now that violent & forcible entry should include armed robbery….. but still depends on the actual policy wordings. There were actually many cases repudiated back in the 90s…. some went to courts and insurers won!

        • Andrew Wong
          July 2, 2011 at 23:55

          IMHO……..and with due respect…..the learned Judge is unlearned to rule in insurer’s favour. Given the logic of what meant by violent and forcible entry, in plain English, an armed robbery itself is by violent and forcible means.

        • Andrew Wong
          July 3, 2011 at 00:50

          In all fairness, Robbery should be an optional extension and the consumer be made to pay for this additional risk. Simply, in a barged in robbery, there is no `restriction’ to the contents being carted away. Whereas in a burglary situation, the thief would not have the `liberty’ to take what is in sight. He needs to search and agree to his favour before taking plus limited to hand carrying. In a robbery, can use a car to cart everything away.

          • July 10, 2011 at 22:52

            Sill thinks we guys are confusing the public as to the difference between burglary and robbery…..

            • Andrew Wong
              July 18, 2011 at 21:59

              To make it clear, I should think insurers ought to specifically exclude robbery in a standard Householders’ and Burglary policy. But allow the option to extent for robbery cover (such as full theft in Householders’) with the consideration of additional premium.

Leave a Reply to Andrew Wong Cancel reply