Lockpicking leaves marks inside the lock which look nothing like what a key leaves behind. http://www.lockpickingforensics.com/

Unless they stole your gold brick collection, no insurance company is going to dismantle your locks (all of them) and send them for forensic tests. Nor would they accept your hired expert opinion. Such procedures are only rational in extreme cases.

> Nor would they accept your hired expert opinion.

I guess they’d be hearing from my lawyer…

My lock picking lawyer…

Depends on the atack, a Lishi key should leave little to no scratches on the pins. Raking would leave the most.

> a Lishi key should leave little to no scratches on the pins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YFW0nh7h3I

The marks you’re looking for are on the sides of the pins, where they get jammed against the barrel. The Lishi doesn’t help that much in preventing this damage

Huh that is very interesting. However I suspect that unless the door was actually damaged the insurer would just go "yeah you didn't lock your door, no claim for you" - I guess you'd have to pay to get your own lock forensics done.

Yeah, the insurance company isn't going to go out of its way to prove they should pay a claim. But it could be useful for a claimant trying to get compensated.

Source please? Standard HO-3 policy defines theft coverage as

9. Theft

a. This peril includes attempted theft and loss of property from a known place when it is likely that the property has been stolen.

b. This peril does not include loss caused by theft:

(1) Committed by an "insured";

(2) In or to a dwelling under construction, or of materials and supplies for use in the construction until the dwelling is finished and occupied;

(3) From that part of a "residence premises" rented by an "insured" to someone other than another "insured"; or

(4) That occurs off the "residence premises" of:

(a) Trailers, semitrailers and campers; (b) Watercraft of all types, and their furnishings, equipment and outboard engines or motors; or (c) Property while at any other residence owned by, rented to, or occupied by an "insured", except while an "insured" is temporarily living there. Property of an "insured" who is a student is covered while at the residence the student occupies to attend school as long as the student has been there at any time during the 60 days immediately before the loss

My policy from a large building society in the UK has an explicit section for cover for theft /not/ using force and violence, but it doesn't apply if the house is lent/let/sublet. That is covered by the preceding section of theft using force and violence.

I.e. force and violence required if letting the property.

Yeah, that makes insurances pretty useless. I have a jewellery insurance but it but the number of outs for the insurance company is saddening. I need to get hurt when I getting robbed on the street before they will cover the theft of my watch. One of the reasons why I mostly wear some watches at home. And if I get violently robbed they only cover up to the retail price and not the replacement cost/price.

If anyone know a better insurance the cover the above cases in the UK. Please tell me.

So you're telling me if I'm ever robbed by an ex roommate who made a copy of the key I should take a crowbar to my door?

I mean, I'm not saying that you would, but I don't see how the rational decision when you find out you've been robbed isn't to break a window yourself. If there's no signs of entry then you simply aren't covered.