Veste

Not upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against AWP P&C S.A.

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6123605 of 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00. Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against AWP P&C S.A.. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6123605
Decision date2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00
FirmAWP P&C S.A.
ProductTravel insurance
Claim typeTravel / life insurance claim disputes
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. Complaint not upheld.

Summary

Ms M claimed on her travel insurance policy after thieves stole her hotel room keycard from a backpack she left on a sun lounger by the pool while she was at the beach 500m-1km away, leading to subsequent theft from her room. AWP declined the claim on the basis that the policy's Section 5 requires policyholders to take suitable precautions and not leave baggage unattended in places accessible to the public. The ombudsman upheld AWP's decision, finding that Ms M's backpack was unattended and she was not in a position to prevent interference from the distance at which she was located. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the contractual test of whether the claim falls within agreed areas of cover. The policy explicitly requires policyholders to take suitable precautions and not leave baggage unattended in places accessible to the public. The ombudsman found that Ms M left her backpack unattended on a sun lounger while 500m-1km away at the beach, and that even if she had visibility, she would not have been in a position to prevent interference from that distance. The ombudsman rejected the argument that the keycard was not her property, as the backpack itself was her property and she could not prevent its interference. The ombudsman concluded the circumstances were not covered under the policy terms.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
AWP P&C S.A., all decisions24031%
Travel / life insurance claim disputes, all decisions20,05231%
Travel insurance, all decisions7,66837%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website