A policyholder who lost more than $372,000 of jewellery at a night market in Thailand has been denied a payout because he misrepresented where he lived when insuring the items.

His claim was rejected by Lloyd’s Australia, which argued it would not have offered the cover had it known he was staying overseas at the time of policy inception and endorsement, and that he would not be living at the Australian address he provided when applying for the policy.

The claimant – who was carrying the jewellery in a bag when he lost it – took his case to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, which has ruled in the insurer’s favour.

The man enquired about cover on October 23 2024 and was quoted the next day. On October 25, he flew on a one-way ticket to Bali; his policy was incepted on October 29.

That December, more jewellery was added to the policy, before the loss in Thailand in January last year.

The claimant argued that “at all relevant times, he was an Australian resident and was temporarily overseas on a tourist visa ... Temporary travel does not amount to ‘living’ overseas or loss of Australian residency.”

Related article: Diagnosis the deciding factor in travel tussle

He told AFCA the Australian address was owned by a family friend and his use of the property was “open, ongoing and legitimate. He planned to continue returning there, and it functioned as both a residence and place of work when he visited it.”

The man said the loss had nothing to do with where the jewellery was kept when not worn, and the policy “expressly provides worldwide cover, which necessarily contemplates overseas travel and temporary accommodation”.

But Lloyd’s said it was allowed to issue policies to people domiciled only in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore. Worldwide cover could be offered if domiciled in Australia.

It said its application questions, including around storage and security, all related to the address provided, and noted that while the man was overseas the jewellery was “stored intermittently in hotel safes, in cars and on his person”, contrary to assurances given in the policy application.

An AFCA panel finds the insurer’s underwriting questions “plainly point to the security at the listed home address, not the postal address or his temporary residence overseas that was never disclosed or provided”.

The panel accepts “the complainant made several misrepresentations when answering the ... questions at the time of policy endorsement.

“This is because the complainant answered them based on where he was residing at the time (and would leave two days later).”

The insurer has been told to cancel the policy and refund premiums paid.

See the decision here.

---

From the latest Insurance News magazine: A roundtable of experts discusses the hottest topics in claims, from complaints and compliance to AI and fraud detection

---