A theft victim who was distracted by a female guest while a man stole $31,400 worth of items from his home will not be covered for the loss because he invited the woman onto his property.  

The complainant filed a claim on April 20, reporting a planned burglary at his home earlier that day.

He said he arranged for an Uber to bring the woman to his home and that, without his knowledge, she asked the driver to pick up a man on the way.  

He alleged the woman blocked his front doorbell camera lens, left the door unlocked and diverted his attention while items were taken.

CCTV footage showed the thief escaping on the claimant’s electric scooter while carrying other stolen goods.

RAC Insurance denied the claim, saying its policy did not cover thefts caused by someone who had permission to enter a property.

The claimant argued the exclusion should not apply because the thief did not have permission and the female guest’s “deceptive actions invalidate any presumed permission”.  

In a dispute decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority finds the “theft of the items would not have occurred without [the woman’s] involvement”.

An AFCA ombudsman notes the woman was charged with offences for her role and was “a willing accomplice to what was an organised criminal act to steal from the complainant.  

“Her involvement was not incidental. It was crucial to the success of the crime. [She] received that invitation.

“That she did so with duplicitous intent does not change the fact that she was authorised to enter.

“I accept the loss or damage was caused by a person authorised by the complainant to enter his home.”  

See the ruling here.