Insights for consumers
Looking after personal belongings while travelling is important, as insurance policies usually exclude cover where items are left unattended in a public place. This can affect whether a claim is accepted.
Melody’s case is an important reminder that sometimes travel insurance policy wording can be open to interpretation. Reviewing relevant definitions may help insurers and consumers understand how terms apply across different travel settings.
Melody enjoys a swim on a cruise ship
In mid‑2025, while travelling on a cruise ship, Melody was seated at the rear of the ship on a large quarter‑round swab seat next to a married couple she had met during the cruise. When the crew announced that the ship would shortly arrive in a bay for morning tea and swimming, Melody asked the couple whether they intended to swim. They did not. Melody asked them to keep an eye on her cell phone and prescription glasses while she went for a swim. She placed the items under her towel on the seat before leaving.
What happened to her cell phone and glasses?
Approximately 30 minutes later, Melody returned from her swim, dried herself, and then noticed that her belongings were missing. She and the couple searched the area without success. Melody later spoke with cruise ship staff, who allowed her to review the CCTV footage. The footage showed a person sitting nearby and using a phone, but it was unclear whether the phone belonged to Melody or whether the person was a crew member or passenger.
Melody noticed that the seat she was sitting on had a gap at the back. She thought that her phone and glasses may have slipped into the ocean when she picked up her towel.
Melody claims $4,000 under her insurance policy
Melody lodged a claim with her travel insurer for $4,000, which was the maximum amount claimable under the policy. This amount was slightly less than her estimated loss of $4,270. The travel insurer declined the claim, relying on an exclusion for leaving personal belongings unattended in public places.
Melody complained to FSCL.
How did FSCL suggest that the complaint should be resolved?
We reviewed the policy wording, including the definition of ‘public place’. ‘Public place’ was defined as ‘…. any place to which the public has access and includes but is not limited to shops, airports, train stations, bus stations, streets, hotel foyers and grounds, restaurants, beaches and public toilets.’
We queried with the travel insurer whether a cruise ship met this definition, noting that cruise ships are privately owned and operated, with controlled access requiring valid passenger tickets.
How was the complaint resolved?
Having considered our query, the travel insurer reconsidered their position. Melody and the travel insurer agreed to resolve the complaint by the travel insurer paying Melody $2,600 for the claim.
