Not upheld: claim declined - lack of proof of ownership complaint against Inter Partner Assistance SA (IPA)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R claimed on his travel insurance policy for £2,200 in cash lost at an amusement park. IPA declined the claim because Mr R could not provide proof of ownership as required by the policy terms. Mr R complained, arguing that requiring receipts for saved cash is unreasonable and makes the money cover meaningless, and that the policy's good rating should have given him confidence in comprehensive cover. The ombudsman found that IPA reasonably required proof of ownership, which is a standard requirement in travel insurance policies, and that Mr R's inability to provide such evidence was sufficient grounds for declining the claim. The complaint was not upheld and no compensation was awarded.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that IPA's requirement for proof of ownership of money claimed as lost or stolen is a standard requirement in travel insurance policies and is reasonable. The policy terms explicitly require original receipts or proof of ownership for items lost, stolen or damaged. Mr R could not provide such evidence. The ombudsman rejected Mr R's argument that requiring proof of ownership makes the money cover meaningless, noting that proof could take forms other than receipts, such as evidence of withdrawal from a savings account. The ombudsman also noted that the IPID summary does not override the detailed policy terms and that a good policy rating does not guarantee coverage regardless of policy terms.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website