A traveller who was robbed of a $98,000 gold watch while in France will have to prove ownership of the timepiece after the financial services ombudsman backed his insurer’s claim denial.

The claimant said he and his wife were walking to their Saint‑Tropez hotel after dinner in September 2022 when two men approached and asked him to take their photo. He used their phone to do so and when he returned it, one of the men grabbed him and ripped the watch from his wrist.

Accident & Health International Underwriting rejected the claim due to insufficient information about the watch’s ownership and its claimed value.

It wanted to see a purchase receipt, information on its service history or confirmation from the manufacturer of the watch’s serial number.

It added that, if the claim was accepted, the loss would be considered an “opportunistic robbery” and be assessed under the policy’s baggage section, which limited cover to $10,000.

The complainant provided photos of him wearing the watch and a screenshot of the serial number. He said he could not supply additional documentation because the item was a gift.

Related article: Premium row not a sorry situation, AFCA finds

He also argued the loss should be covered under the policy’s kidnap and extortion section, which had a $500,000 sublimit, because the incident “involved physical restraint, threats or conduct amounting to extortion or illegal detention”.

And he requested a payout under the policy’s trauma injury benefit.

In its dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority agrees the loss has yet to be established.

The traveller has been told to provide a statutory declaration from the person who gave him the watch, along with the purchase history and information about its authenticity.

The claimant must also provide an email from the manufacturer verifying that the watch’s serial number matches the one in the screenshot.

The loss cannot be considered under the kidnap and extortion provision. AFCA says a police report indicates he was “never held for the purpose of compelling him to act, nor was any consideration offered or demanded.

“There is no mention of any threats, confinement, demands, or any conduct amounting to extortion or detention as defined by the policy.

“Rather, it confirms that the watch was taken immediately, without any opportunity for the complainant to offer it as consideration to end a threat or restraint.”

The insurer does not have to pay a trauma benefit because the policyholder has not filed a claim or provided supporting information to demonstrate he suffered psychological harm.

See the ruling here.

---

From the latest Insurance News magazine: As the gangland tobacco wars appear to ease, we examine the fallout for insurers and brokers

---