Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited · DRN-5899637

The complaint Mr O is unhappy with what Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited did after he made a claim on the gadget section of his travel insurance policy. What happened Mr O’s laptop was stolen from a hotel room while he was abroad. He made a claim on the gadget section of his policy. Great Lakes is the insurer of that. After obtaining further information from Mr O including a police report it found a spare key had been used to access his hotel room. It said the policy didn’t provide cover unless there had been forced and violent entry (and there was evidence of damage as a result). As that wasn’t the case here it turned down the claim. Our investigator said as a key has been used to access the room there had been force. But he accepted there hadn’t been violent entry. However, Mr O had locked the room when he went out and there was no dispute a thief had then stolen his laptop (and other belongings). He thought Mr O had taken all reasonable steps to protect his property and it wasn’t fair of Great Lakes to turn down the claim. He said it should settle it in line with the policy terms. Great Lakes didn’t agree. It said the use of a spare key went beyond its risk appetite which is why the policy only covered theft from buildings where there was forced or violent entry causing damage. It had many examples of previous complaints where we’d agreed with its decision to decline claims on that basis. Mr O agreed with our investigator’s overall outcome and reiterated why he thought Great Lakes had declined his claim unfairly. He highlighted the time he’d put into challenging its decision which he said caused him to lose a day’s earnings. So I need to reach a final 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. The relevant rules and industry guidelines say Great Lakes has a responsibility to handle claims promptly and fairly. It shouldn’t reject a claim unreasonably.

-- 1 of 3 --

I’ve looked first at the terms and conditions of Mr O’s policy. That does cover theft of a gadget which it defines as “the taking of the Gadget(s) by a third party with the intention of permanently depriving You of it, using force, threat of violence or by pickpocket”. However, the policy doesn’t provide cover “where the Gadget has been stolen from any motor vehicle or building, unless all protections are in operation (including those to prevent unauthorised keyless entry to vehicles) and the Gadget(s) is hidden out of sight so that forced and violent entry causing damage is required. Evidence of the thief’s damage must be provided with Your claim”. In this case Mr O says the theft occurred after he left his laptop in his locked hotel room (and left the key with reception) while he visited a local shop for around 10 minutes. When he returned the room was still locked but his belongings were strewn over the bed and his laptop and other items were missing. Mr O reported the matter to the police and their investigations identified the culprit had used a spare key to access Mr O’s room. I’m aware of relevant case law in relation to forcible and violent entry which found if a person turns a key he uses force but not violence. Violence occurs where entry is effected by the exercise of force in a manner not customary in order to overcome the resistance of the usual fastenings and protections in the premises. That would be the case, for example, where the lock had been picked. That didn’t happen here as the police report says access was obtained by use of a spare key. So I accept there isn’t evidence of forced and violent entry causing damage in this case. But I also need to consider what’s fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances. In doing so I’ve taken into account that generally an insurer includes a restriction relating to forcible and violent entry to ensure it doesn’t have to pay claims where the theft results from the policyholder not properly securing their property. In this case it’s not disputed Mr O locked his hotel room and left the key at reception. Great Lakes hasn’t suggested there are any other steps he should have taken to protect his laptop. So I think Mr O has taken all reasonable steps to protect his property. And a theft nevertheless took place I don’t think it’s fair in those circumstances for Great Lakes to decline the claim because the policy term as it results to violent entry (and damage) hasn’t been met. Great Lakes says it has “many” examples of other cases where we agreed with its position on the application of this policy term. However, it hasn’t provided any further details. In any event each complaint is decided on its own merits and based on its own particular circumstances. I’ve explained in this case why, although I accept that the policy exclusion does apply, I don’t think it’s fair of Great Lakes to rely on it. Great Lakes will therefore need to settle the claim in line with the remaining policy terms. I’ve also considered whether any compensation should be paid to Mr O. He’s highlighted the time he’s had to put into resolving this matter which he said caused him to lose a day’s earnings. I’ve not seen clear evidence of that loss. But in any event I think Mr O would always have needed to engage with Great Lakes to provide it with information about his claim. That doesn’t therefore result from anything it got wrong. And while I accept he did have to put additional effort into challenging its decision (and then referring the complaint to us) I don’t think the nature and extent of any additional trouble and upset he was reasonably put to is something for which compensation is warranted.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision I’ve decided to uphold this complaint. Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited will need to settle Mr O’s claim in line with the remaining terms and conditions of his policy. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. James Park Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --