A traveller who alleged a luxury watch and other items were stolen after he had been drugged by a young woman he met at a bar has lost his claims dispute.

The complainant says he had been at a hotel bar when the woman approached him and offered to buy him a drink. He says after having four or five drinks, she asked to continue drinking in his hotel room. 

The man says he told the woman that he was not interested in “paying for intimacy” but that she had assured him that she was not a “working girl”. The pair went to his room following the conversation.

“When we got to the room, she kissed me and then went to the bathroom,” the complainant told the police.

“I explained I didn’t want any fun and she said it was ok, we could chat more. 

“She said I should lay down. That was the [last] thing I recall.” 

He says when he woke up, the woman had gone, and he noticed that his Tag Heuer watch, cologne and perfume was missing, along with some cash. 

The policyholder lodged a claim with Zurich Australia for the theft, but the insurer declined the claim, saying the policy excluded losses that arise from the “conduct of someone who enters your accommodation with your consent”. It says the complainant had knowingly invited the thief into his room, which was supported by the man’s statement to the police. 

The insurer also noted exclusions for losses that stem from a policyholder being impaired due to excessive alcohol consumption.  

The man argued the items had been taken after he had been drugged by the woman, and he therefore could not have consented for her to enter the room.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) accepted the insurer’s reasoning for the claim denial saying the complainant’s account of the story showed that he was capable of decision-making in the time before he lay down on the bed. 

AFCA noted there had been no toxicology report to show that the man had been drugged or was otherwise incapable of controlling his actions when he invited the thief to his room.  

“The fact he could say he did not want to pay for any intimacy (when the thief suggested they go to his room) shows that he was still in control of his thoughts and actions when he allowed her to enter his room,” AFCA said. 

“The policy excludes a theft by a person that has entered the complainant’s room with his consent.” 

“Accordingly, while I empathise with the complainant for his loss, I am satisfied the insurer is entitled to decline his claim.”

Click here for the ruling.