Cancelled trip
The insurer had led Yasmin to believe that the claim would be covered.
The insurer had led Yasmin to believe that the claim would be covered.
Yasmin’s complaint was settled, because the insurer had led her to believe that the claim would be covered, and she acted on this advice to her detriment.
Yasmin held insurance on an overseas trip between March and April 2024.
Yasmin was notified prior to the start of the trip that the cruise, which was the purpose of the trip, was cancelled. As a result, she telephoned the insurer (the query call), to understand whether the non-refundable pre-paid costs of the trip would be covered by the policy.
Yasmin later made a claim for the loss.
The insurer stated that, because one of the cruise ports was in Israel, the recent outbreak of war was the reason for the cruise being cancelled. Therefore, the insurer relied on the exclusion for claims directly or indirectly related to war or invasion to decline the claim.
Yasmin made a complaint, saying that she had been advised during the query call, that the loss would be covered by the policy. Yasmin also said that, had she known there was an exclusion which could have applied, she would have used the flights and accommodation, but taken a different trip. Therefore, Yasmin did not believe the insurer should be able to decline the claim.
The case manager’s assessment
During the query call, the insurer did give Yasmin misleading advice about the policy. At one point, the insurer said “I can’t actually confirm or deny if you’ve got cover… it’s such a heavy word … there is absolutely provision within that cover”.
In addition, Yasmin could show reliance on this statement, as she cancelled the trip, rather than opting to use the pre-booked travel for a different cruise or tour.
However, following discussions with the case manager, the insurer agreed to reverse its decision and accept the claim. Yasmin agreed that this resolved her complaint.
*Name has been changed