BURGLARS brought Julie Grace's Mediterranean holiday to an devastating end when they raided her apartment, slashed open her suitcase and stole her mobile phone, cash and other items.

But at least she thought she wouldn't have to worry about meeting the £400 cost of the burglary. After all, Julie, 25, from Dringhouses, York, had taken out full travel insurance with Tesco before leaving for Majorca with three other friends. The flat in Cala D'Or had been locked when the intruders had picked the lock and got in, and she had full documentation from Majorcan police after reporting the theft. However, when she returned home and called Tesco Travel Insurance to lodge a claim, she was told: "Sorry, you aren't covered." Tesco - whose motto is Every Little Helps - made it clear there was a little detail in her insurance documents which would certainly not help her in her efforts to get the items replaced.

The exclusions small print stated that personal possessions left unattended in locked personal accommodation were only covered if there was "evidence of force or violence having been used to gain entry to the accommodation."

Julie said: "I couldn't believe it. I could understand it if we had left the door open but we had been careful to lock it every time we went out. What more could we have done? And force was used to get the items out of my suitcase. I would like to warn other travellers of this exclusion."

She said Joanna Davis, one of the friends who accompanied her to Majorca, also had about £400-worth of items stolen or damaged in the same burglary, and was hit by the same exclusion clause. Joanna said: "As far as we were concerned, we had made sure our stuff was secure and locked in a room."

A spokesman for the Association for British Insurers said he had not come across such a case before. He said that if someone was unhappy with an insurer's decision, it was possible to go to the Financial Services Ombudsman to examine it.

But a spokesman for Tesco said the decision had been in line with industry standard.

The policy, designed as an anti-fraud preventative measure, meant a claim could not be entertained if there was no visible sign of a forcible entry. He said that in such cases, a number of other possibilities other than lock-picking existed, such as failure to lock the door.

Updated: 10:59 Tuesday, September 09, 2003