Phones, pets, bikes and house moves: refusals in personal-property insurance and how to challenge them

In short

The law sets no minimum conditions for phone, bike or pet insurance; the policy determines the cover. But the policy must be clear and understandable, and any doubt is interpreted in favour of the insured (Insurance Act, art. 23).

The first question with any refusal letter: is the condition an exclusion, a condition of cover, or a behavioural obligation (forfeiture, déchéance)? For a forfeiture, the insurer must prove a causal link between the breach and the loss (art. 65).

A condition you were not shown before the sale, or that was only covered by a reference to the general conditions, may not be enforceable against you (Court of Cassation 15.2.2019 and 22.12.2022).

For pets, the insurer must prove a “pre-existing condition” exclusion applies; the Ombudsman has criticised these exclusions as vague and broad.

A removal firm is liable unless it proves the damage came from an external cause not attributable to it (Code of Economic Law, art. X.44). In a consumer contract, a clause removing liability for gross fault or for failure to perform the main obligation is unfair (art. VI.83, 13°). Report visible damage in writing no later than the second day after delivery (art. X.47).

The insurer must give a reasoned reply within 3 months to your challenge on cover (art. 73/1 and 111/1, claims made after 1.10.2024).

Phone (multimedia), bike, pet and removal insurance is usually bought in a few minutes in a shop, at the bike dealer, from a vet’s leaflet or online. The common thread in the complaints in the Insurance Ombudsman’s reports is that consumers only discover the conditions after the loss. According to the Minister’s reply to Parliament, there are no statutory minimum conditions for pet insurance; the FSMA carried out 118 checks on these products in 2025.

The same tools help in all four cases in this guide:

Clarity and favourable interpretation: policy terms must be clear and precise; in case of doubt, the interpretation most favourable to the policyholder prevails (art. 23; Cass. 8.10.2021). But a clear term is not unclear merely because it does not list a new situation separately (Cass. 12.1.2024).
Information: the scope of cover is a main feature of the product; a mere reference in the special conditions to the general conditions is not enough information (Cass. 15.2.2019). There is no consent to terms you had no real opportunity to read before the contract (Cass. 22.12.2022).
Forfeiture and causation: a term tied to the insured’s behaviour may be a forfeiture even if labelled an “exclusion”; the insurer must then prove causation between the breach and the loss (art. 65; Cass. 5.2.2016). If it is a condition of cover (e.g. “the door must be locked with a key”), you must prove the condition was met (Liège Court of Appeal 17.12.2012).
Unfair terms: in consumer contracts, terms that shift onto the consumer a burden of proof normally borne by the other party, or that inappropriately limit the consumer’s legal rights, are always unfair and void (Code of Economic Law, Code de droit économique, art. VI.83, 21° and 30°; VI.84). Terms defining the main subject of the contract escape this review if they are clear and understandable (art. VI.82). According to the CJEU, insurance terms that clearly delimit the insured risk may fall into this category; but grammatical clarity is not enough, they must be transparent enough for the consumer to foresee their economic consequences (C-96/14 Van Hove, 23.4.2015).

My phone was stolen and the insurer won’t pay because “the SIM card registered on the policy wasn’t in the phone”. Can it refuse if I was never told about this condition?

If the condition is clearly written in the policy and was really brought to your attention before the contract, the refusal can be lawful. If it was not, or the wording is unclear, you have grounds to challenge it.

What is the condition? The Ombudsman found that some phone policies tie cover to the SIM card rather than the device: without the right SIM card the phone is not insured, and changing the SIM at the time of the loss may void the claim. In one market example, cover is tied to the phone number and its SIM card, and the device used with that SIM in the 30 days before the incident (including the day itself) is the insured device. So a different SIM in the phone at the time of theft does not always void cover under the policy wording. The same report notes that many policies cover only theft with violence (vol avec violence), which is hard to prove.

Depending on the situation:

In most policies the SIM link is part of the definition of the insured device (e.g. “the insured device is the device used with SIM card number X”); because it concerns the insured item rather than your behaviour, it is a condition of cover and you must prove it was met. There is no published Belgian ruling on this point; when qualifying a clause the court looks at its content, not its label (Cass. 5.2.2016). Your strongest argument is information: if the condition sat only in the general conditions and the seller did not explain it, its enforceability can be challenged under Cass. 15.2.2019 and 22.12.2022. An intermediary selling insurance must give you a standard information document (IPID) before the contract (EU Insurance Distribution Directive 2016/97, art. 20); check whether it mentions the SIM condition.
If the condition is drafted as a behavioural obligation (“the phone must always be used with the registered SIM card”), it is a forfeiture: since a different SIM card did not cause the theft, the insurer will struggle to establish causation (art. 65).
If the meaning is unclear (e.g. “registered line” or “same operator”?), the favourable interpretation applies (art. 23 §2).

How do I prove the theft? You must prove the theft, but because this is hard to prove, a sincere and plausible account may suffice if nothing casts doubt on it (Mons Court of Appeal 21.4.2016, vehicle theft). Gather:

an immediate police complaint and report number (the policy may set a time limit for this),
the purchase invoice and the device’s IMEI number,
a letter from the operator showing when the SIM card was used in which device (IMEI) and that the line was blocked; under “last 30 days” conditions this is the key evidence,
for alleged violence: witnesses, a medical certificate, camera footage.

Report the loss as soon as possible (art. 74). Replacing the device with a refurbished one (reconditionné) is allowed if the policy provides for it; if it does not, challenge it.

My pet insurance refused vet costs because “the illness started before the policy”. There was no firm diagnosis; does that change anything?

It may. What matters is how the policy defines a “pre-existing” condition and whether the insurer can prove it.

What does the Ombudsman say? According to its 2024 report, pre-existing condition exclusions are defined “vaguely and broadly” and may even cover problems appearing in another part of the body; the vet’s opinion carries decisive weight and there is no transparent dispute procedure. In 2025 requests in this area more than tripled; problems often start when the vet record is requested after a claim and reveals information not disclosed when the policy was taken out.

Depending on the situation:

The policy says “diagnosed illness”: if there was only a vague symptom before and the diagnosis came later, the exclusion should not apply.
The policy says “illness whose symptoms had started”: the insurer must prove that the earlier symptom belonged to the same illness. Ask your own vet for a written opinion on whether there is a medical link between the earlier symptom and the new diagnosis.
If the definition is unclear, the favourable interpretation applies (art. 23 §2); the insurer must prove the conditions of the exclusion.
Unfair terms review: because it delimits the risk, a pre-existing condition exclusion may count as part of the main subject of the contract; it then escapes the unfair terms review only if it is clear and transparent (art. VI.82; CJEU C-96/14 Van Hove). If a clause of the “vague and broad” type criticised by the Ombudsman fails that transparency test, the court can review it under art. VI.82 and VI.83.
If disclosure is in issue: you only had to disclose circumstances you knew and should reasonably regard as relevant; if the insurer concluded the contract even though you left a question unanswered, it cannot rely on that later, except in case of fraud (art. 58). For non-intentional non-disclosure, the rule is proportional payment, not refusal; if the insurer proves it would never have insured the animal, it only refunds the premiums (art. 60). Nullity requires intent (art. 59).

Which costs are paid? The law sets no list; tests, surgery, medication and follow-up are paid according to the policy’s annual ceiling, reimbursement percentage, excess and waiting period. You can argue that tests leading to the diagnosis of a covered illness are costs of that illness. For chronic illnesses, watch the following year: the Ombudsman notes that insurers can end contracts for animals they consider high-risk; the insurer can object to renewal at least 3 months before the annual expiry date (art. 85).

My e-bike was stolen at the station while locked; the insurer says my lock was not approved or not attached through the frame

If the lock condition is clearly written in the policy and was brought to your attention, the insurer can rely on it; but depending on the type of condition, it may have to show that the breach was linked to the theft.

Conditions on the market. Many policies require the bike to be locked to a fixed point, through the frame, with an approved lock of a certain class: for example the star rating of the Dutch ART foundation (e.g. at least 2 stars up to €5,000, 3 stars above) or Sold Secure ratings from the United Kingdom. According to the Ombudsman, “securing the bike is the fundamental element that determines whether or not there is cover”, and disputes arise in particular over the notion of a “fixed object”.

Depending on the situation:

The condition was not clearly written or not shown to you: information argument (Cass. 15.2.2019, 22.12.2022) and favourable interpretation (art. 23). The Ombudsman reports a case where a non-compliant lock was sold together with the insurance at a bike shop; misleading advice by the seller can make the intermediary liable.
The condition is a behavioural obligation (forfeiture): the insurer must prove causation (art. 65). Clauses governing behaviour after the contract is concluded, such as locking and attaching, are often treated by the courts as forfeitures even if labelled “exclusions” (Cass. 5.2.2016; for a vehicle tracking system obligation, Liège Court of Appeal 16.12.2020). There is no published bike-specific ruling; the Ombudsman also assesses these cases through causation. The Ombudsman’s example: the lock was compliant but the bike was not attached to a fixed object; if the lock was cut, the bike would have been stolen even if attached. Keep the cut pieces of the lock, ask for station camera footage and keep the police report. According to the Court of Cassation, art. 65 is not limited to gross fault and may apply to ordinary negligence (Cass. 10.3.2025); the real debate is therefore causation.
The condition is a condition of cover: you must prove you used an approved lock and attached the bike correctly: lock invoice, certificate number, keys.

Battery and accessories. The Ombudsman notes that theft of accessories, especially the battery, is increasingly common. Some policies do not cover wheels or the battery stolen separately from the bike. A battery stolen with the bike is part of the bike and, unless the policy says otherwise, should in principle be included in the compensation. Accessories are paid only if listed in the policy or added to the sum insured. Whether you receive new value or value after depreciation depends on the policy’s valuation table (art. 107).

On the legal status of e-bikes (bicycle or motor vehicle), see the cyclists and e-bikes guide.

The removal firm delivered my belongings damaged; the firm invokes its contractual cap and my home insurer points to the carrier. Who do I claim from?

You claim first from the removal firm and its liability insurer; your home insurance only steps in if your policy covers this damage. And the firm’s liability cap is not valid in every case.

The removal firm’s liability. The CMR rules applied to domestic road haulage do not cover house moves (Act of 15.7.2013, art. 51 §3, 3°). Moves are governed by the transport contract provisions of the Code of Economic Law (art. X.41-X.49; before 1.11.2018 the same rules were in the Act of 25.8.1891):

The carrier is liable for damage or loss unless it proves an external cause not attributable to it (art. X.44).
Accepting delivery extinguishes all claims against the carrier, except for specific reservations or hidden damage. For visible damage and losses, reservations or complaints must be made in writing and sent to the carrier no later than the second day after delivery. For hidden damage inside the packages, the period is 7 days excluding the day of delivery, and you must prove the damage occurred before delivery; but if you were offered the chance to check the goods at delivery, the hidden-damage exception does not apply (art. X.47).
If there is a dispute at delivery, either party may ask the president of the enterprise court to appoint an expert to establish the damage (art. X.48).
Actions arising from the carriage of goods are time-barred after 6 months for domestic transport; for damage the period runs from the day of delivery (art. X.49).

Common clauses in general conditions: liability limited to “intent and gross fault only”, a cap that can be raised by the insured amount or an extra premium, a 24-hour complaint deadline after delivery. In a consumer contract these clauses are assessed as follows:

A term releasing the firm from liability for its own fraud, gross fault or, except in force majeure, for failure to perform its main obligation (moving the goods intact) is always unfair (Code of Economic Law, art. VI.83, 13°). A clause excluding liability altogether may therefore be void.
A term that inappropriately excludes or limits the consumer’s legal rights in case of non-performance or defective performance is also always unfair (art. VI.83, 30°). A clause cutting the statutory second-day and 7-day periods to 24 hours, or saying “liability ends when the movers leave”, removes the hidden-damage right altogether and can be strongly challenged on this basis. Whether a cap is “inappropriate” is for the court to assess case by case; there is no published Belgian ruling on removals.
A term making you irrevocably accept clauses you had no real opportunity to read before the contract is unfair (art. VI.83, 26°); if the general conditions were not given to you, whether they bind you can be challenged (Cass. 22.12.2022).
In non-consumer contracts too, for contracts concluded after 1.1.2023, a clause exempting from liability for intentional fault and a clause that empties the contract of its substance are deemed unwritten (Civil Code, art. 5.89).

Claiming directly from the insurer. You can claim directly from the removal firm’s liability insurer (Insurance Act, art. 150). But if the firm’s liability insurance is not compulsory, the insurer may rely on policy exclusions against you (e.g. a “goods in custody” exclusion): the exclusion stems from the contract concluded before the loss (art. 151 §2). Only facts after the loss (e.g. the firm’s late notification) cannot be raised against you. The insurer will not pay you more than the firm owes either. Business liability policies often exclude goods in the firm’s custody; ask the firm in writing whether it has separate goods-in-transit insurance and who its insurer is.

Your home insurance. A home policy pays for breakage or damage during a move only if it covers it (e.g. “contents during a move” or “all risks” cover). If it does, the insurer cannot refuse just because a third party is liable: it pays you and then recovers from the removal firm (art. 95). If it does not, your counterparty is the removal firm.

New value or second-hand value? There are two different yardsticks. Under your own insurance, the policy’s valuation table applies; new value may have been agreed (art. 107). Against the removal firm you claim your full loss: the repair cost or the value of a similar item; the repair cost may not exceed the cost of acquiring a similar item (Cass. 17.9.2020). For old items, depreciation will be debated.

Practical steps:

At delivery, open the boxes while the movers are present; write the damage on the delivery document and take photos.
Report visible damage in writing no later than the second day after delivery, and damage found inside boxes within 7 days, by registered letter or email (art. X.47).
Gather invoices, photos and repair quotes; do not throw away damaged items until they have been inspected.
If there is no agreement, you can contact the Consumer Mediation Service (Service de médiation pour le consommateur).
The time limit for suing the removal firm is 6 months from delivery (art. X.49); do not let negotiations run past it.

Checklist

Do I have the full text of the policy clause relied on in the refusal letter? Is it an exclusion, a condition of cover or a forfeiture?
Which documents was I given before the contract (IPID, special conditions, general conditions)? Do I have copies of emails and sales screens?
If it is a forfeiture: is there a causal link between the breach and the loss? Has the insurer explained it in writing?
Phone: police report, invoice, IMEI, operator letter.
Pet: the policy’s definition of “pre-existing”; earlier vet records; my own vet’s written opinion; the questions asked on the proposal form.
Bike: lock invoice and rating; the cut lock; photo of where it was locked; police report; battery and accessory invoices.
Move: reservations written on the delivery document, photos, date of written complaint, identity of the firm and its insurer, when I received the general conditions.
No reasoned reply within 3 months: have I claimed the flat-rate amount (art. 73/1, 111/1)?
No agreement: the Ombudsman (against the insurer) or the Consumer Mediation Service (against the removal firm). The time limit for suing your insurer is 3 years: deadlines guide.

For refusals in general, see the refused claim guide; for burglary and water damage at home, the home damage guide.

Sources

This guide is general information, not legal advice. Current as of 05.10.2026.