Not upheld: claim settlement - interpretation of policy cover complaint against Inter Partner Assistance S.A. (IPA)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained about IPA's settlement of his travel insurance claim after he cut short a year-long backpacking trip due to a facial injury requiring medical treatment. IPA reimbursed his medical expenses (£2678.74 after excess) and airline ticket home (£636.34 after excess), but declined his claim for £3000 for 88 missed days of the trip. The ombudsman found that IPA correctly applied the policy terms, which require unused accommodation or travel costs to claim under the 'cutting short your trip' section. Since Mr H had no pre-booked accommodation he could not use, there were no qualifying costs to reimburse, and loss of enjoyment is explicitly excluded from cover. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that IPA correctly settled the claim by paying all submitted medical invoices and the airline ticket after applying policy excesses. The claim for loss of enjoyment and unused trip days was properly declined because the policy cover for 'cutting short your trip' specifically requires unused travel or accommodation costs to have been incurred. Mr H had no accommodation booked that he could not use, so there were no qualifying costs to reimburse. Loss of enjoyment is explicitly excluded from the policy cover.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website