Upheld: unfair claim rejection and unreasonable application of policy exclusions complaint against Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6370949 of 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim rejection and unreasonable application of policy exclusions complaint against Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6370949 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited |
| Product | Travel insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claim rejection and unreasonable application of policy exclusions |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited must: (1) pay the value of Miss R's lost mobile phone subject to policy excess and limits; (2) pay simple interest on that amount using the time-weighted average of the Bank of England base rate plus one percentage point from the date Miss R purchased her replacement phone until settlement; (3) provide a tax deduction certificate if requested; (4) pay Miss R £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Miss R claimed on her travel insurance policy for a mobile phone lost while participating in a water sports activity on holiday. She had placed the phone in a locked locker as instructed by the activity organisers, but it was missing when she returned. Great Lakes rejected the claim citing policy exclusions for unattended gadgets and theft without evidence of forced and violent entry. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Miss R had taken reasonable care to protect her property by following the organisers' instructions and locking the locker, and that it was unfair for Great Lakes to apply the exclusions in these circumstances. The ombudsman ordered Great Lakes to pay the claim value plus interest and £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Miss R technically left her phone unattended, she took reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of loss by placing it in a locked locker as instructed. The exclusion for unattended gadgets should only apply where the policyholder has not taken reasonable care. Regarding the forced and violent entry exclusion, while there was no evidence of violent entry, the ombudsman considered it unfair to apply this exclusion where Miss R had taken all reasonable steps to protect her property, followed instructions, and a loss nevertheless occurred. The ombudsman applied principles of fairness and reasonableness in all the circumstances, noting that the purpose of such restrictions is to prevent claims arising from improper securing of property, which was not the case here.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited, all decisions | 175 | 30% |
| Travel insurance, all decisions | 7,560 | 37% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website