Not upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6120807 of 2026-06-23T00:00:00+00:00. Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6120807 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-23T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Aviva Insurance Limited |
| Product | Travel insurance |
| Claim type | Travel / life insurance claim disputes |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr S claimed reimbursement of £175.90 for a taxi to the airport after being unable to identify his pre-booked coach at the bus station due to insufficient information in his itinerary. Aviva declined the claim as the circumstances were not covered under the policy terms. The ombudsman upheld Aviva's decision, finding that the 'Missed transport' clause only covers delays or cancellations of pre-booked transport, not situations where the insured person cannot identify which transport to board. Although sympathetic to Mr S's predicament, the ombudsman concluded the claim fell outside the policy's scope of cover.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the contractual test of whether the claim falls within agreed areas of cover in the policy. The 'Missed transport' clause explicitly covers only situations where pre-booked transport is delayed or cancelled. Since there was no evidence the coach was delayed or cancelled, and the deficiency of information provided by the carrier is not an insured peril under the policy terms, the claim fell outside the scope of cover. While sympathetic to Mr S's situation, the ombudsman concluded that Aviva reasonably declined the claim in accordance with the policy wording.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Aviva Insurance Limited, all decisions | 5,113 | 27% |
| Travel / life insurance claim disputes, all decisions | 20,052 | 31% |
| Travel insurance, all decisions | 7,668 | 37% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website