Insured clients have to “take safety measures to make sure that personal baggage is safe”.

What are the obligations of a traveller to take care of his/ her luggage and to prevent loss? This was discussed in the following Decision by the Ombudsman:

In August 2018, Mrs G and her husband were catching a train from Paris to Disneyland in France. During the trip, Mrs G’s luggage was sliced open and items within it were stolen. Her insurer rejected her claim saying she was not present with her luggage when the theft took place, as required by the policy.

Mrs G disagreed with the insurer and approached OSTI to mediate the dispute.

Mrs G’s side of the story

The train from Paris to Disneyland was busy and, on boarding, Mrs G was separated from her husband. She also found herself surrounded by a group of young teenage girls. When the girls exited the train, Mrs G noticed that her luggage had been tampered with and certain items within the bag had been stolen.

The police report stated that Mrs G and her husband lost several high-end items, including a camera and its accessories, sunglasses, a tablet, headphones, jewellery, a speaker, a watch, a hair straightener and cash, among other belongings.

After reporting the incident to the police, along with a description of the girls, Mrs G and her husband were informed that the girls, more than likely, belonged to an organised crime ring.

The insurer’s reason for rejecting the claim

The insurer rejected Mrs G’s claim on the basis that Mrs G had failed to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of her personal baggage. The wording in Mrs G’s policy stated that,
“[The] insured must take safety measures to make sure that personal baggage is safe and must not leave it unsecured or unattended or beyond reach at any time in a public place.”

The insurer stated that, according to Mrs G’s claim form, her baggage was not on her person at the time of the incident. The insurer based this assessment on the wording of Mrs G’s statement on her insurance claim, as well as the wording the French police had used to describe the robbery. The insurer said that the police report notes the cause of loss as ‘Vol a la tire’ which translates to ‘robbery’ and not ‘pickpocketing’.

A final point the insurer made was that the items could not possibly have been pick pocketed from Mrs G’s bag without her noticing. The insurer said that Mrs G had further prejudiced her claim by disposing of her bag after the incident. This meant that her insurer could not verify Mrs G’s account of how the thieves had gained access to the items inside the bag.

OSTI finds in favour of Mrs G

After studying the case, OSTI found in favour of Mrs G. The insurer provided different examples demonstrating the context in which the phrase ‘vol a la tire’ was used.

OSTI noted that the most common translation for ‘vol a la tire’, based on the information provided, was pickpocketing. The term was used most in the context of pickpocketing, street crimes, purse snatching and shoplifting. All the examples, said OSTI, referred to the theft of items from the victim’s pocket or person without the victim noticing at the time.

OSTI explained that pickpocketing is a crime that typically takes place in the presence of crowds, making it difficult for the victim to notice the theft. As per Mrs G’s statement to the police, she was indeed surrounded by a group of girls.

She only noticed the loss once the girls had disembarked from the train. This indicated that Mrs G was on the train and had her bag with her at the time, said OSTI.

Based on Mrs G’s account of the event, and the police statement, OSTI found that Mrs G had demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the items were stolen from her bag, which she had on her person, while she was on a crowded train. The insurer had failed to demonstrate otherwise.

The satisfactory outcome for Mrs G

OSTI recommended that Mrs G be paid out in full for her loss to which the insurer agreed.