Not upheld: Unknown / needs review complaint against TICORP Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs R purchased a Staysure branded travel insurance policy from TICORP Limited with a 35-day trip limit but later wanted to take a 40-day holiday. The underwriter declined to extend cover due to their age. Mr and Mrs R complained that the trip limit was not clearly communicated during the sales process and the policy was mis-sold. The ombudsman found that TICORP provided clear information about the 35-day limit both during the telephone sales call and in subsequent written documentation, including the policy certificate and terms. The ombudsman noted that Mr and Mrs R had opportunities to ask questions, contact TICORP, or cancel within the cooling off period, and rejected their argument that the extension clause created an expectation of automatic cover extension. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that TICORP provided clear information about the 35-day trip limit both during the sales call and in subsequent written documentation. The policy certificate and terms explicitly stated the maximum trip duration for those aged 71 and over. The ombudsman was not persuaded that the clause allowing extensions 'if agreed by us in writing' created a legitimate expectation of automatic cover extension. The ombudsman noted that Mr and Mrs R had the opportunity to ask questions during the sales call, contact TICORP after receiving documentation, or cancel within the cooling off period if the policy did not meet their needs.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website