Bahrain’s Cassation Court has dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a BD12,000 insurance claim by a villa owner burgled while he was away. The owner’s property had been empty for over a month before the thieves cut cables in the main electrical supply, smashed chandeliers and removed expensive items from the house.
However, his policy stated that any claim would be void if the property was left completely vacant for 30 days. The insurance company said this meant the owner’s claim was invalid as police said the villa was empty when the burglars entered, following the conviction of one man for the offence.
The homeowner, who had kept up mortgage payments on the property throughout, insisted he had been misled, arguing the forfeiture clause was buried in text too small to notice and demanded compensation through the courts.
A civil court initially sided with him, ruling that the clause was indistinguishable from the rest of the policy’s wording in font, size and colour, and ordering the insurer to pay the full claim plus interest and legal costs.
That victory proved short-lived. The insurer appealed to the Supreme Civil Appeals Court, presenting electricity bills showing negligible power usage at the property for several months before the incident — evidence the company argued was sufficient proof of prolonged vacancy.
Lawyers for the insurer maintained that such forfeiture clauses are a standard feature of property insurance policies, not an unusual or hidden condition. The appellate court agreed, reversing the earlier ruling and siding with the insurer.
Determined to recover his losses, the homeowner escalated the case to the Cassation Court, again arguing the clause had not been made sufficiently clear.
Bahrain’s top court, however, found the grounds fell outside its scope of review and dismissed the appeal outright, leaving the earlier ruling — and the denial of his claim — intact.
