A claimant whose household items went missing and were damaged during transit has failed in her bid to have broker Arthur J Gallagher compensate her for the loss.

The woman complained she was not told of the sum insured or clearly informed of a $3000-per-item cover limit when she completed an online form for the transit and storage insurance policy.

She acquired the policy through the removalist – an authorised representative of Gallagher – that took her items from NSW to Victoria.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority agrees the insurance application process was “misleading” and policy documents did not clearly define what items needed to be declared specified valuables.

But it says the woman is not entitled to compensation from the broker because it has already ruled in a separate complaint that insurer XL Insurance is liable for her loss.

In that complaint, the authority ordered the insurer to pay the woman based on the sum insured of $33,000.

“While I accept the process in obtaining the transit and storage cover was misleading, I do not accept it has caused an additional entitlement to compensation under the policy beyond the sum insured,” an AFCA ombudsman’s ruling said. “I have determined the insurer is liable to pay compensation … in the circumstances, as [Gallagher] is the insurer’s intermediary, it would be unfair to pay compensation beyond that payable under [the other complaint].”

The woman lodged her claim in March last year after nine items were either missing or damaged.

The insurer’s assessor agreed with estimates for items valued at less than $3000 each.

For the remaining items – a white leather lounge, a chaise lounge, a king bed and a table – the assessor did not dispute the estimated values but noted they were non-specified items under the policy and the $3000 limit for each item applied.

The policy’s product disclosure statement included limits and exclusions, and among these were items worth more than $3000. The policy referred to cover being limited to $3000 unless items were listed and valued in the insurance declaration.

AFCA says the insurance declaration form does not clearly tell an insured they must specify any item valued above $3000, and notes the PDS defines valuables as any antique, curio jewellery, plate, precious object, musical instrument, work of art, medal, collection of items, fur or piece of precision equipment, or “any one item, pair set or collection”.

“The definition refers to items I would broadly describe as collectibles,” AFCA’s adjudicator said. “It does not refer to typical household items such as lounges, tables or beds. The complainant did not list any items under step two [of the online application process]. The complainant says the process is misleading as it does not refer to items such as lounges, beds or tables. I agree.”

Click here for the ruling.