A man who removed his Omega Constellation Co-axial 18 carat gold watch and hid it in his car to avoid unwanted attention while visiting a busy pie shop during an afternoon of sightseeing in NSW has lost a theft claim dispute with Lloyd’s.

After visiting the pie shop for around half an hour, the man and his partner drove on and visited Belmore Falls, stopping to admire the view, before travelling to Cambewarra lookout, Nowra, Wollongong and Penrith, arriving home around 5pm.

The man then tried to retrieve the watch from the car’s centre console where he hid it hours earlier, but found it was missing.

He reported the theft to police and lodged a claim under a private jewellery and valuable articles policy held with Lloyd’s, which covered the watch for $39,225.

Lloyd’s declined the claim, saying that as the watch was stolen while not worn, carried or under immediate supervision, the loss was excluded from cover.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) agreed Lloyd’s was entitled to rely on an exclusion stipulating items valued above $10,000 must be supervised.

“The circumstances of the loss are not in dispute and have specifically been excluded from cover under the policy,” AFCA said. “At the time of the theft, he was not wearing, carrying or supervising the watch. It is clear the watch was left unsupervised in his unattended motor vehicle.”

The policy covered the watch against physical loss or damage occurring anywhere in the world during the policy period, though it included an exclusion relating to the loss or theft of the watch and items valued above $10,000.

The exclusion stated “We do not cover loss of or damage to Your Valuable Article caused by theft or disappearance unless at the time of such loss or damage Your Valuable Article is being worn or carried by you; being attended by you and remaining under your immediate supervision and control, or the immediate supervision and control of a responsible adult authorised by you; or deposited in a locked safe or bank/safety deposit vault.”

It was not clear at what point during the day the Omega watch was stolen as it was left in the car unsupervised on multiple occasions during more than five hours that afternoon.

There was no evidence how the vehicle was accessed or of forceful entry.

“Given the above, I am satisfied the insurer is entitled to decline the complainant’s claim in line with the policy exclusion relied upon,” AFCA said.

The watch owner said the broker who arranged the policy had not explained that cover was subject to any conditions or exclusions and he had been of the view the watch was covered for any type of loss both inside and outside the home. However, AFCA said the broker provided the policy provisions and recommended he read the documentation to ensure it met his needs.

The broker specifically referred to the fact the policy was subject to limitations and asked him to read the information, bringing his attention to the exclusions, AFCA said.

“The complainant, having been made aware of the policy provisions, accepted the quote and the policy was incepted for him,” AFCA said.

“There is no dispute the complainant was provided with the relevant policy documentation informing him of the policy provisions, both at the time of obtaining a quote as well as at the time of policy inception.”

See the full ruling here.