A complainant who had her device stolen from a gym locker has lost her dispute against her insurer’s decision to decline the claim. 

Virginia Surety Company agreed that the item was stolen from the locker without the insured’s permission but says it was not coverable under the personal device policy as there had been no evidence of a “violent and forcible entry”.  

The policy identifies “violent and forcible entry” as “evidence of visible damage at the point of entry to a building or vehicle”. 

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) acknowledged that the policy wording of “building” suggested that the insurer “may have needed to show signs of forced entry” to the gym. 

However, the insurer signalled that it relied on exclusions relating to the complainant not taking reasonable precautions to prevent the theft, in addition to forced entry exclusion. 

The claimant argues that it was not valid for the absence of a violent and forcible entry to be the sole reason why the claim was denied and notes that she did take appropriate steps following the theft. 

She says she usually kept the locker secured and locked and highlights that gym staff had keys to access lockers. She also notes that she reported the matter to the gym and police in a timely manner. 

AFCA acknowledged the complainant’s position but said her arguments did not assist her as they did not show any evidence of damage to her locker. 

The ruling also notes that the insured was not 100% confident that the locker was secured on the date of the loss. 

“There is no dispute the complainant’s device was taken without permission from a locker while she was at the gym,” AFCA said. 

“I am satisfied this was a theft, however whether this was a theft as covered by the policy is in dispute.” 

“In the absence of any evidence showing there were visible signs of forced entry into the locker to facilitate the theft, I am satisfied the insurer is entitled to decline the claim.

“This is because the policy excludes theft of a device where there is no clear evidence of violent and forcible entry.” 

Click here for the ruling.