Not upheld: claim declined - exclusion for travelling against FCDO advice; poor claims handling complaint against AWP P&C S.A.

Decision detail

Summary

Miss O claimed on her travel insurance policy for medical expenses incurred during hospitalisation abroad in August 2025. AWP declined the claim because she had travelled against FCDO advice, which was an excluded circumstance under the policy terms. Miss O argued the exclusion was unclear and misinterpreted, and that she only travelled through the affected zone to reach her destination for a baptism. The ombudsman found the exclusion was clearly stated in the policy and applied to travelling through affected areas, and that attending a baptism did not constitute essential travel. Although AWP delayed in making its decision, the ombudsman found this did not affect the outcome as Miss O would have followed medical advice to stay overnight regardless. The complaint was not upheld, and the £200 compensation already paid for poor claims handling was deemed appropriate.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the policy exclusion for travelling against FCDO advice was clear, fair and not misleading, and that it applied to travelling through an affected area to reach a destination. Attending a baptism does not constitute 'essential travel' as defined in the policy. While AWP delayed in making its decision, the outcome would have been the same if proper service had been provided, and Miss O would have followed medical advice to stay overnight regardless. The £200 compensation was appropriate for the loss of expectation and poor claims handling.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website