Complainants who lodged a claim for stolen jewellery will not be compensated after a dispute ruling backed their insurer's decision to decline the claim because the likely thieves had consent to enter the home.

The policyholders filed the claim in March last year, alleging that a group of bed removalists who attended the property on February 25 stole jewellery items from their home. 

The claimants’ daughter, referred to as SG, was at the property when the removalists arrived at around 9am before leaving shortly afterwards. The removalists remained at the home until 10:30am before leaving. The complainants were at the property during this time.

SG says she realised a theft occurred when she went to put some of her jewellery away the following day and noticed items were missing or placed in different spots. 

SG says the removalists’ company confirmed that the contractors provided false names and contact information on a note at the claimants’ property. SG also contacted the police, who investigated the event but did not charge anyone. 

Suncorp told the complainants that it would not cover the loss, noting that its policy excluded thefts caused by people who had approved access to the home.

The insurer notes that SG had said she was “a million percent” sure that the contractors were the thieves. 

In September, the complainants told the insurer there was new information about the claim and that it should be reopened.

SG said she could not be sure that the contractors stole the items because her dad thought he may have left the home’s door open one day, which would have allowed a thief to enter and steal the items. 

SG also says the contractors had at some point taken the parents out of the home to help carry some boxes, during which the door remained open, allowing an opportunity for someone else to enter the home. 

Suncorp told the policyholders it would accept but, after further investigations and interviews, declined the claim again.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) says Suncorp was entitled to decline the claim as the theft was “most likely” committed by contractors.

“I acknowledge the complainants’ contention that the contractors may have allowed someone else into the home to commit the theft,” AFCA said.

“There is no evidence that anyone else entered the property while the contractors were there and I consider this unlikely.

“Even if it did occur, the loss was arguably still ‘caused by’ the contractors who entered with the complainants’ consent, and the exclusion would probably still apply.”

AFCA says the insurer is entitled to make “preliminary indications of likely acceptance,” and it was not unreasonable to change its decision when presented with further information about the event. 

“Insurers are generally permitted to make gratuitous representations without abandoning their rights under the policy and are not bound to pay a claim by reason of initially accepting it,” AFCA said.

“I do not accept that the letter dated September 12 was a written undertaking. The letter is more accurately described as a representation by the insurer that it would accept the claim.

“In the circumstances, the insurer is not bound by its acceptance of the claim and was entitled to reverse this decision and rely on the policy exclusion.”

Click here for the ruling.