Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited · DRN-5967570

The complaint Mrs D complains Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited have unfairly declined her claim for a lost mobile phone, under the travel insurance policy she holds with them. What happened The details of the complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them here. Instead, I will focus on the reasons for my decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I agree with the Investigator that this isn’t a complaint that should be upheld. I know this will be very disappointing for Mrs D, but let me explain why. Mrs D has a travel insurance policy with Great Lakes that protects her and her family for losses including gadgets and mobile phones. She made a claim in May 2025, stating her phone had been lost or stolen during a private airport transfer. Great Lakes declined the claim, relying in part on an exclusion for leaving items unattended. I think they did this fairly. Mrs D has said she thinks the phone was stolen during the transfer. She has pinpointed a time when the luggage (which had her phone in it) was taken out of a locked compartment of the coach and placed outside by the coach driver. Mrs D’s policy entitles Great Lakes to exclude claims where the phone has been “left unattended”. This is further defined as “when you cannot see and/or are not close enough to your property, or vehicle, to prevent unauthorised interference with, or theft of, your property”. I think this applies here. When submitting her complaint, Mrs D said: “all luggage had to be placed in the external luggage compartment, as there was no space inside the coach”. And: “upon arrival…the driver had already removed our luggage and thrown it into the middle of the road…I strongly believe, based on the sequence of events, that the phone was stolen…during this unaccompanied moment.” Based on this I am satisfied the phone was left unattended in line with the policy definition and that Great Lakes are acting fairly in declining the claim based on the exclusion where items are left unattended. Mrs D has said the term is being misapplied because she was adjacent to the luggage and could have sight of it when it was locked away. However, I don’t agree with this as I’m satisfied Mrs D was not in sight of it or close enough to intervene, if her

-- 1 of 2 --

phone was taken out of her luggage without her noticing. In response to our Investigator’s view, Mrs D said the term wasn’t being applied fairly as this was a travel scenario. Implying she had no other option. However, I agree with Great Lakes’ that Mrs D could have placed her phone in her pocket or kept it on her, so she had alternative options and so it is fair to apply the exclusion. In Mrs D’s response, she has also said these terms weren’t made clear. However, having reviewed the policy documentation I am satisfied they were prominent and clear. With the exclusion being relied on right at the top of the page detailing the optional gadget cover. And ‘unattended’ being defined within the policy booklet. I know this will be disappointing for Mrs D, but I don’t ask Great Lakes to do anything further here. My final decision I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs D to accept or reject my decision before 27 March 2026. Yoni Smith Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --