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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M claimed on his travel insurance policy for additional expenses after his flight was cancelled while he was in the United Arab Emirates. IPA declined the claim under the policy's war exclusion clause. Mr M argued the cancellation was due to regulatory restriction, not war, and complained to the FOS. The ombudsman found that even if the disruption resulted from regulatory restriction, it arose directly or indirectly from regional hostilities including drone and missile strikes affecting the UAE at that time. The ombudsman upheld IPA's reliance on the war exclusion, noting that such exclusions are standard in travel insurance policies and insurers are entitled to specify which risks they cover.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the policy clearly excludes claims arising directly or indirectly from war, hostilities or warlike operations. Even accepting Mr M's argument that the flight disruption was due to regulatory restriction, the ombudsman concluded this arose directly or indirectly from the hostilities affecting the UAE region at that time, including drone and missile strikes. The ombudsman noted that travel insurance policies commonly contain such exclusions and insurers are entitled to specify which risks they will cover as a commercial decision.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website