The complainants stated that the loss occurred after their plane landed in Bali. According to the male complainant, his partner accidentally left her purse and phone on the seat while unloading luggage and got distracted.
While waiting in immigration, the woman realized her items were missing. She rushed back to the aircraft but found that they had already disappeared. She claims to have reported the loss to the Jetstar cabin crew, but they were not very helpful.
In addition, the complainant noted that the precious items held sentimental value, making the loss even more devastating for them.
Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance decided to decline the claim, stating that the policy's coverage specifically excluded losses resulting from unattended items.
According to the insurer, their policy terms clearly state that losses due to forgetting, walking away from, or leaving items in a public place are not covered.
In response to the denial, the complainants presented a different version of events. They explained that the items were actually taken right in front of them while they were retrieving their luggage. They claimed they did not accidentally leave the items on the seat and had thoroughly checked the area before leaving the plane.
The couple argued that they were highly emotional and stressed when initially reporting the loss, stating that this new account of events better explained what had happened.
However, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) favored the initial report of the claim. They noted that the male complainant had calmly reported the loss to the insurer and believed that the couple changed their story only after the claim was denied.
AFCA acknowledged that the complainants did leave the items unattended, as defined by the policy terms. They emphasized that the couple had no control over preventing the loss since they had already disembarked from the plane at the time the items were taken.
"It is unfortunate that the complainants' personal effects were taken after they had exited the airplane," stated AFCA.
"Although dealing with the loss during their holiday abroad must have been distressing, the insurer is not obligated to accept the claim. According to the policy, the complainants' circumstances surrounding the loss fall under the excluded category."
This case bears resemblance to another AFCA dispute recently reported by insuranceNEWS.com.au, which ruled in favor of the insured in a lost luggage claim. You can find the ruling here.
