Not upheld: claim rejection - policy exclusion and lack of cover complaint against AWP P&C S.A.

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that AWP unfairly rejected his travel insurance claim for additional flight costs incurred when his original flights were rerouted due to Middle East conflict. AWP rejected the claim citing a war exclusion. The ombudsman found that Mr H's situation did not fall within any covered section of the policy, as he had not cancelled his trip as defined, the circumstances did not match any listed insured events for travel disruption, and he had not checked in for departure delay cover. The ombudsman upheld AWP's rejection and found no grounds to depart from the policy terms.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr H's situation did not fall within any covered section of his policy. The cancellation section did not apply because Mr H did not cancel his trip as defined in the policy. The travel disruption section did not apply because the circumstances did not match any listed insured events. The departure delay section did not apply because Mr H had not travelled to the departure point or checked in. Additionally, a clear and unambiguous war exclusion applied to both cancellation and travel disruption sections. The ombudsman found no grounds to depart from a strict application of the policy terms.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website