A woman who said about $200,000 worth of items were stolen from her home will be covered for her losses despite her insurer’s scepticism about the theft claim.  

The insured lodged a claim in July 2021 over thefts between February and May that year.  

A police report noted the woman suspected a person, referred to as C, was the culprit. C denied involvement when interviewed by insurer Chubb’s investigators and suggested the claimant had also suspected other people, including her daughter’s ex-partner.  

The insurer also interviewed the woman’s ex-husband, who said he was not convinced a theft had occurred and was surprised the claim was reopened after initially being closed due to lack of evidence. 

The ex-husband later clarified that while he did not see any evidence of the theft, he believed the claimant’s statement.  

Chubb also spoke to the complainant’s daughter, who said she did not believe a theft took place, although she acknowledged she was not present at the time.  

The insurer declined the claim, citing a “lack of consistent evidence” and the statements from family members. It also noted that police had closed their investigation after they could not identify a perpetrator and the woman failed to provide requested information.

In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says there is “minimal objective evidence confirming a theft occurred”.

However, it says the complainant provided proof of purchase for the missing items and there is no evidence to suggest she had possession of them after July 2021.  

AFCA’s panel notes the woman was in a vulnerable state due to an injury at the time of the alleged thefts, and it is possible the items were taken by someone who had access to the home.  

The authority says the insured’s home policy responded to “physical loss or damage” to her contents, which was met because the items were missing.

It says it is not fair for the insurer to deny the claim because it did not rely on exclusions or conditions, but insisted a theft was not proven.  

"The complainant does not need to do this to satisfy the insuring provision. She only has to show she lost the items during the policy period. She has done so.

“Even if the information is unclear if/how/when a theft occurred, the panel accepts the complainant’s evidence the items have been lost since that time. This is because no evidence has been produced to suggest the complainant still retains possession of any of the items claimed or had sold them for a profit. No other information shows she dispensed such expensive items in a different way and with her knowledge and consent.”

The decision requires Chubb to accept the claim and assess the extent of the loss.  

Click here for the ruling.