ONE of the complaints investigated by the ombudsman was a case where a couple's baggage was stolen at an airport, but the insurance company refused to pay up.

The theft occurred after a difficult flight. Baggage had been put down while they read the instructions on the airport ear park automatic pay machine.

The company argued that the £3,000 worth of luggage was left unattended and one of the people should have stayed with it.

A standard clause in almost all such policies warns the insured to exercise reasonable care for safety and to supervise the property as if it were uninsured.

The ombudsman said one of the party could have stayed with the luggage and, in hindsight, should have for safety purposes.

"Given the stressful circumstances of the landing, the fatigue and the short time for which the cases were unattended, I was not convinced that the conduct of the complainant amounted to recklessness.

"In the circumstances I decided that the claim should be admitted by the company," said the ombudsman.

In another case a woman was disappointed in relation to the surrender value offered by the insurance company in a life assurance policy less than two years into the life of the policy.

She submitted that she was not made aware of the possibility of a fall in the value of the policy, or warned of the implication of the setting up costs involved.

In 1992, the woman had signed a proposal for the policy and two years later, with approximately £1,000 paid in premiums, had sought the surrender value of the policy.

She was shocked to discover that the value of her policy would only amount to £417 as she had intended it to function as a savings vehicle.

She said she received no warnings from the company representative that the policy should have been viewed as a "medium to long term investment".

In its defence the company said a policy booklet and covering letter, urging careful perusal, had been sent containing a policy review option.

The woman said she had never received such a document.

After examining the evidence the ombudsman found that it was likely such a letter and brochure had been sent, but there was a probability the woman never read them.

She had not produced evidence sufficient to tilt the balance in her favour, and her claim for a return of premiums could not be upheld.