Not upheld: claim rejection / policy exclusion application complaint against Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F and Miss G claimed on their travel insurance policy after being stranded in country Q due to regional hostilities that cancelled their onward flights to country S, incurring additional costs. Great Lakes declined the claim based on a war and civil unrest exclusion in the policy. The ombudsman found that while the claimants arrived before hostilities began, their circumstances did not fall within any of the policy's specified covered events for trip curtailment or delay, and therefore there was no insured event. The ombudsman upheld Great Lakes' decision to decline the claim as it was fair and reasonable to apply the policy exclusion, noting that insurers are entitled to define their coverage.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that no travel insurance policy covers every eventuality and insurers are entitled to decide what risks they will cover. The specific circumstances encountered by Mr F and Miss G were not covered by the policy as they did not cut their trip short for any of the specified reasons (death, illness, court attendance, adverse weather, strike, or mechanical breakdown). Although the claimants arrived before hostilities began, there was no insured event as required by general insurance principles. The exception in the war exclusion for sudden, unexpected occurrence of war in a previously peaceful area did not apply because there was no insured event triggering coverage.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website