A cruise passenger will not receive a payout for stolen jewellery after the complaints authority found the items were probably left unattended. 

The claimant told Zurich Australia last September that he left his backpack, containing a gold bracelet and necklace, under a sun chair while swimming with his daughter in the ship’s pool.

He said when he returned to his suite, he found the items were missing from the bag.

Zurich declined the claim, pointing to its exclusion for items left unguarded in public places, which defined “unattended” as “not on your person or within your sight and reach”.  

The claimant later changed his version of events, stating he checked the bag and discovered the theft two days after being at the pool.  

He said he was unsure when the jewellery was stolen but he suspected cleaners took it while the bag was in his cabin.  

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the claimant’s initial version of events is more likely.

An ombudsman explained: “When presented with inconsistencies between a person’s recollection of events, our general approach is to prefer the most contemporaneous (initial) version because: it is likely to be the most accurate as less time has passed since the event, and it is unlikely to have been influenced by the adverse claim decision.”

AFCA acknowledges the man’s mother was near the bag but says the policy’s definition of “you” does not extend to people who are not listed on the policy.  

“It is unfortunate the complainant’s jewellery was stolen while he was swimming. However, this does not mean the insurer is obliged to accept the claim ... the insurer has established this exclusion applies to defeat the claim.” 

See the ruling here.