Not upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against AWP P&C S.A.

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F and Miss S claimed for additional travel expenses after their flight to country T (with stopover in country U in the Middle East) was cancelled by the airline due to 'current disruptions'. They booked alternative flights and claimed the additional costs. AWP declined the claim relying on the general war exclusion. The ombudsman found that given the context of hostilities in the Middle East and airport closure, AWP reasonably applied the war exclusion despite the airline not explicitly citing war. Although the telephone advice could have been clearer about potential trip disruption cover, this did not cause material detriment as the claim was properly assessed. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although Mr F and Miss S's circumstances would fall within the trip disruption cover for departure delays due to flight cancellation, AWP reasonably applied the general war exclusion. Given the context of hostilities in the Middle East, the airline's decision to cancel all flights to the region, and the closure of the airport in country U, it was not unreasonable for AWP to rely on the war exclusion despite the airline not explicitly citing war as the reason. While the telephone advice could have been clearer about potential cover under trip disruption, this did not cause loss as Mr F was able to submit and have his claim assessed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website