Not upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Inter Partner Assistance SA (IPA)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W purchased a single trip travel insurance policy from IPA covering February to March 2026. His return flight from Asia to the Middle East was cancelled due to airspace closure, and he incurred costs for alternative flights, meals and expenses. IPA declined his claim, citing both lack of policy cover and the war risks exclusion. The ombudsman upheld IPA's decision, finding that the policy did not cover flight cancellation due to airspace closure and that the war risks exclusion reasonably applied given the hostilities in the Middle East at the time.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the policy terms as the starting point. The policy did not cover flight cancellation by an airline due to airspace closure under any section (cancellation, curtailment, or delayed departure). Although the airline cited 'airspace closure' rather than war or hostilities, the ombudsman found it was not unreasonable for IPA to rely on the war risks exclusion given the undisputed fact of hostilities in the Middle East. Even if the exclusion did not apply, Mr W would need to demonstrate his claim was covered by the policy, which he could not do.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website