A traveller has won a $6300 claim dispute after his bag was stolen by a tuk-tuk driver during an overseas holiday.

The luggage contained a laptop, Apple watch, Montblanc pen and two pairs of Prada sunglasses.

HDI Global Specialty declined the January claim, saying its travel policy excluded items left unattended or left behind in transport. 

But the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says HDI has not established that exclusions applied and “it was clear” the bag was stolen, not left accidentally. 

"I am not satisfied the bag can reasonably be accepted as being unattended. I consider the insurer’s application of the unattended exclusion to be too narrow and unreasonable and would remove the commercial purpose of the policy,” AFCA’s ombudsman said. 

"The bag was stolen in the process of disembarking ... in a matter of seconds. This time frame is significantly small. It is unlikely a reasonable person in the position of the parties would consider the items were left unattended in such a brief window of time.” 

The traveller, with several bags, rode in the tuk-tuk about 7pm on January 5, heading to a cafe near his hotel. The driver pulled over in the busy street and hastily unloaded the bags, then left quickly after being paid. 

“We realised he had sped off with the light brown bag containing the laptop etc and shouted after him to stop. He failed to stop and was gone in the traffic. This all happened in seconds,” the claimant said.  

“We did feel the driver knew he was leaving with our bag of valuables and made use of the busy roadside situation to enable him to do so.” 

The traveller said the circumstances met “any fair and reasonable definition of theft”. 

The AFCA ombudsman says the claimant was reasonably close to the bag and was “able to raise an alarm” by shouting at the driver to stop.  

“I therefore do not accept the bag was left in such a position that he could not attempt to prevent any unauthorised interference,” the determination said. 

The traveller said the items were by his knees, squeezed between seats, and his belongings were always close and within his sight, noting a tuk-tuk “does not enable one to be distanced from anything or anyone in such a small space”. 

However, the driver “used distraction and sleight of hand to obtain the bag and drive off”. 

See the ruling here.