Upheld: unfair claim rejection and partial claim settlement complaint against Inter Partner Assistance SA
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6282019 of 2026-04-13T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim rejection and partial claim settlement complaint against Inter Partner Assistance SA. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6282019 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Inter Partner Assistance SA |
| Product | travel insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claim rejection and partial claim settlement |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | IPA must: (1) pay the remainder of Mr D and Mrs E's claim in line with the remaining policy terms and conditions, with interest at 8% simple per annum from one month after the claim date until payment; (2) pay £150 additional compensation for distress and inconvenience (in addition to the £50 already paid), within 28 days of acceptance of the decision, with interest at 8% per annum simple if paid late. |
Summary
Mr D and Mrs E claimed under their travel insurance policy after Mrs E fell ill abroad and was medically unfit to fly on their scheduled return date. IPA initially declined the claim citing undisclosed pre-existing conditions, but after Mrs E provided evidence, acknowledged the decline was wrong. However, IPA then only paid Mrs E's portion of the claim, refusing Mr D's costs. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that while the policy required notification to the Emergency Assistance Service before extending the stay, it was unfair to strictly apply this condition given the medical emergency, the fact that both were insured, and that industry practice would have advised Mr D to remain with Mrs E. IPA was directed to pay the remainder of the claim plus additional compensation of £150.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while the policy terms technically required notification to the Emergency Assistance Service before arranging extensions, the circumstances of the case made it unfair to strictly apply this condition. The ombudsman reasoned that: (1) both Mr D and Mrs E were insured; (2) medical evidence clearly showed Mrs E was unfit to fly; (3) Mr D and Mrs E contacted the claims team on the same day of the medical emergency; (4) based on industry practice, the Emergency Assistance Service would likely have advised Mr D to remain with Mrs E rather than return alone; (5) the rejection of a claim for breach of a policy condition is unreasonable unless the circumstances are connected to that breach; and (6) IPA's handling errors, including the incorrect initial decline and delay in identifying the error, caused additional distress.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Inter Partner Assistance SA, all decisions | 1,640 | 41% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website