Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against AWP P&C S.A

Decision detail

Summary

Miss T claimed on her travel insurance policy with AWP after belongings were stolen abroad, including a camera stolen from a locked rental car. AWP paid most of the claim but declined the camera claim citing a policy exclusion for valuable items left in motor vehicles. Miss T complained that the exclusion was unfair and that AWP had verbally advised the camera would be covered. The ombudsman found AWP acted fairly within the policy terms, as cameras were defined as valuable items and the policy clearly excluded such items from motor vehicles, while still allowing coverage if stored in hand luggage or on the person. The £100 compensation AWP paid for service delays and initial rejection of other electrical items was deemed appropriate, and the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that AWP acted within the policy terms and conditions when declining the camera claim, as the policy clearly defined cameras as valuable items and explicitly excluded claims for valuable items left in motor vehicles. The ombudsman determined that AWP's differentiation between valuable and non-valuable items was reasonable given the increased risk and monetary value, and that the policy provided meaningful cover as customers could store valuable items in hand luggage or on their person. While AWP's verbal advice that the camera would be covered was incorrect, this occurred after the theft and did not change Miss T's ultimate position. The £100 compensation already paid fairly recognised the service failures in claim handling.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website