A holidaymaker who was injured in a scuffle with a public official in Greece will not be covered for medical and other expenses after he was found to have inflamed the incident by swearing at the man.

The row happened when the claimant attended a land registry office to investigate a plot he potentially owned. He became aggressive and yelled at several officials when they could not find any land linked to him, according to the public servant’s statement, upon which insurer AWP Australia relied.

The claimant, it was alleged, hit the public servant with his bag and a strap; the Greek official retaliated by hitting the complainant on the head with a picture frame.  

AWP Australia said it declined the claim because its policy excludes losses caused by “deliberate acts or illegal or criminal acts”.  

The holidaymaker acknowledged he had sworn at the public servant but said this was because staff had mocked and humiliated him. He said his bag hit the man accidentally when he lifted it in panic while several staff members were yelling at him.  

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the traveller, who required hospital treatment, suffered worse injuries than the public servant.  

It accepts police did not charge the traveller but notes he was read his rights and advised of potential charges. He included barrister fees of €1395 ($2278) on his claim.  

The authority says the insurer is entitled to decline under the “deliberate acts” exclusion. It agrees the incident escalated because of the complainant’s anger.

“I am satisfied that, even if provoked by his understanding that they were making fun of him, the complainant’s swearing at the public servant was a deliberate act,” the authority said. “It is also clear from the public servant’s police statement that he took great offence at being sworn at.” 

AFCA’s dispute ruling acknowledges both parties had raised tempers but “things clearly escalated from the initial swearing”. It also rejects the claimant’s explanation for striking the public servant.  

“I have no doubt he felt he was being mocked and that his emotions both at that point and as events played out were strong,” the authority’s adjudicator said. “But he could have responded to the situation in other ways that would not have escalated things.”  

Click here for the ruling.