Court Rules Against Full Travel Insurance Payout for Italy Car Theft
A Herzliya Small Claims Court judge ruled that AIG must pay an Israeli family an additional 845 NIS following a rental car burglary in Rome. The court upheld exclusions for valuables left in vehicles.
A routine family trip to Italy concluded with a theft that exposed significant limitations in travel insurance coverage, culminating in a ruling by Herzliya Small Claims Court President Judge Efrat Ohr-Eliass. The Bassa family, consisting of five members, had stopped for a 20-minute break at a shopping center near the Rome airport on their final day in April 2025. Upon returning to their rental vehicle, they discovered it had been forced open, with belongings valued at 67,447 NIS stolen, including luggage, clothing, computers, cameras, jewelry, and a passport.
The insurers, AIG, reimbursed 15,167 NIS while refusing to cover valuables left inside the car. The family subsequently filed a lawsuit demanding 32,988 NIS. According to the plaintiffs, the vehicle was parked in a designated parking lot equipped with surveillance cameras, and the equipment was locked and hidden inside the trunk beneath the vehicle's standard cover. They argued that the policy covers valuables up to $2,000 per person as an independent and explicit commitment.
Policy Discrepancies and Court Findings
AIG maintained that items like laptops should have been locked in a safe rather than left unattended in a vehicle, noting that mobile phones, cash, jewelry, and perfumes left in a car are excluded from coverage. The court determined that the American Express Centurion card travel insurance policy applied to the case, as referenced by the plaintiffs themselves, though the judge noted no material difference between the policies regarding the disputed clauses.
While the policy stipulates that luggage left locked and out of sight in a vehicle is considered supervised, an exception clause dictates that valuables such as jewelry, watches, cameras, computers, and electronic equipment are not covered unless kept on the insured person's body or in a close handbag, or deposited in a safe or another secured location. Furthermore, mobile phones, accessories, glasses, and perfumes are strictly excluded under all circumstances.
The court rejected the family's argument that a locked car in a camera-monitored parking lot constitutes a secure location equivalent to a safe. Judge Ohr-Eliass ruled that surveillance cameras merely serve as a deterrent and do not provide active protection against theft comparable to a physical safe or carrying items on one's person. The court also dismissed the argument that carrying the valuables during a brief stop was burdensome, noting the items could have been distributed among the five family members.
Partial Ruling on Calculations
The judge did rule in favor of the plaintiffs on one specific calculation error. AIG acknowledged the father's items amounted to 7,148 NIS, but after applying a 35 percent depreciation and a deductible, the insurer paid 2,919 NIS instead of the correct amount of 3,764 NIS. Consequently, the court ordered AIG to pay the father the remaining 845 NIS within 30 days. Compensation for emotional distress was rejected due to a lack of detailed substantiation, and each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs.
