Partially upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Inter Partner Assistance SA
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6453353 of 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00. Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Inter Partner Assistance SA. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6453353 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Inter Partner Assistance SA |
| Product | Travel insurance |
| Claim type | Travel / life insurance claim disputes |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | IPA must: (1) promptly reassess the claim, taking into account all evidence Miss B can provide in support that her drinks were tampered with without her knowledge and consent; (2) pay Miss B £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the unfair claim handling and the unnecessary time spent challenging IPA's approach. |
Summary
Miss B claimed on her travel insurance policy for hospital costs incurred while on holiday abroad after becoming unexpectedly intoxicated. She explained that a person unknown to her had added alcohol to her drinks without her knowledge or consent, resulting in blood alcohol levels disproportionate to what she had intentionally consumed. IPA declined the claim relying on an alcohol exclusion without requesting further information or investigating Miss B's explanation. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, finding that while IPA could ultimately rely on the alcohol exclusion, it failed to act fairly by declining the claim without first exploring the circumstances Miss B had described in multiple emails and supported by witness statements. The ombudsman directed IPA to reassess the claim after obtaining all available evidence from Miss B and to pay £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while IPA was entitled to rely on the alcohol exclusion, it failed to act fairly by declining the claim without first requesting and considering Miss B's explanation about drink tampering. The ombudsman noted that Miss B's condition on hospital arrival (making incomprehensible statements) meant her account could not be properly assessed at that time, and that IPA had a regulatory obligation to handle claims fairly and not unreasonably decline them. The ombudsman concluded it was fair and reasonable for IPA to have requested further information before declining the claim, particularly given Miss B had provided multiple emails with her account and had obtained witness statements. The ombudsman emphasized that IPA must now reassess the claim in light of all evidence Miss B can provide, though this does not preclude IPA from ultimately relying on the alcohol exclusion after proper investigation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Inter Partner Assistance SA, all decisions | 1,644 | 41% |
| Travel / life insurance claim disputes, all decisions | 20,052 | 31% |
| Travel insurance, all decisions | 7,668 | 37% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website