<Facebook post by Mark>
Is this poorly worded or am I not understanding something here?
Back in June, my wife and I took a work trip to Denmark. Prior to the trip, we purchased travel insurance from HL Assurance, as we usually do for extended and distant trips.
During the trip, my wife’s phone was pick-pocketed some where on the subway in Copenhagen. It was emotionally distressing for her as our boy was around 6 months old that time, and she has lots of photos and videos of him stored on her phone since his birth.
We made a police report the next day (within 24 hours) and was informed by the local police that there had indeed been a recent spate of pick pocketing going around. You could say this unfortunate incident essentially soured the rest of our trip.
Once back in SG, I submitted a claim to HL Assurance for my wife’s phone. That was around 1.5 months back.
A few days back, I sent another chaser to their CS which they promptly responded to, and I had a follow up from a claims executive.
As you can see from our email correspondence, HL Assurance’s stance is that “personal effects” such as “mobile devices” are not covered under their policy under any circumstances (though I still have not seen where this whole exclusion clause is in the policy). The claims executive keeps persistently pointing me to an exclusion clause for “loss and damage”, none of which, I feel, is applicable to this case of theft.
Unfortunately, the stance of HL Assurance was still to reference a clause that has no bearing on my case, and to reiterate the claim that “…losses of mobile phone regardless of any situation is not covered”.
I must be reading or understanding something wrongly. Shouldn’t the exclusion list be stated under the definitions regarding “personal effects”?