Not upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Europ Assistance SA

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L claimed on his travel insurance policy after his phone was stolen while he was abroad in March 2024. The theft occurred when a person asked him for directions, then unzipped his bag and stole the phone without using violence. EA declined the claim because the policy only covered theft by violent robbery, which is defined as involving threat or use of physical violence. The ombudsman upheld EA's decision, finding the policy terms clear and unambiguous - theft coverage was limited to violent robbery only, and since no violence occurred, the claim fell outside the covered perils.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the principle that insurance policies cover only agreed areas of risk as set out in the terms and conditions. The policy clearly distinguishes between two insured perils for luggage: loss or damage, and theft by violent robbery. The ombudsman found the policy wording unambiguous - theft is only covered if it results from violent robbery. Since Mr L's phone was stolen without any physical violence or threat, it did not fall within the covered perils. The ombudsman concluded EA was entitled to decline the claim in line with the clear policy terms.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website