Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Euroins AD

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Euroins AD unreasonably declined two travel insurance claims: one for an unused excursion after a 4-hour flight delay and cancellation, and another for his share of non-refundable accommodation costs when flights were cancelled due to wildfires. The ombudsman found that Claim 1 did not meet the 12-hour delay threshold required by the policy, and Claim 2 was not covered as wildfires at the destination were not listed among the insured perils. Although the ombudsman had sympathy for Mr G's circumstances, particularly as other family members' claims were paid by a different insurer, the test was whether the claims fell within the agreed areas of cover in the policy terms. The complaint was not upheld, and no compensation was awarded for customer service issues as the claims were correctly declined on their merits.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Insurance policies are designed to cover specific agreed risks set out in terms and conditions, not every eventuality. For Claim 1, the delay was less than 12 hours, falling outside the policy's coverage threshold. For Claim 2, wildfires at the destination were not listed among the ten insured perils under the Cancellation and Curtailment section. While the ombudsman had sympathy for Mr G's circumstances, the test is whether the claims fall within agreed areas of cover. Euroins acted fairly by relying on and abiding by its policy terms. The fact that other family members' claims were paid by a different insurer is not relevant to whether Euroins acted fairly under its own policy terms. Regarding customer service, as the complaint was correctly declined on its merits, there was no error to compensate for, and Mr G was largely shielded from poor service as his mother handled the matter on his behalf.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website