It’s done, not because bods leave (as they always claim) their unlocked bike “For a couple of minutes”, on their drive but because - more often than not - they leave it unlocked for hours on end, when they’ve told the underwriter it’s garaged. That they do the same on the streets of London whilst they sit at their desks in the office for eight hours is well known.
It’s laughable that bikermates demand safe secure parking when travelling but object to it when at home, as some sort of infringement of their liberty.
As to the rest? If anyone thinks that an insurer will not pay when their bike is stolen from a petrol station 10 yards from their house whilst they pay for their fuel or from Tesco’s car park 500 yards away whist they stock up on doughnuts is having a laugh. The law is very clear that the application of any policy Condition, Warranty or Exclusion has to be fair, reasonable and proportionate, with any doubt counting towards the insured entity (you) not the insurer.
The world is apparently alive with bike thefts. Does anyone have a real life, genuine, clearly documented example (as opposed to “My mate says....”) where a theft claim has been declined due to the application of the garaging Condition, the bike having been nicked from a petrol station, cafe, shopping arcade or similar chilling location within the exclusion zone of a bod’s house? MCN should be full of them, as should UKGSer but there seemingly isn’t one.