Travel Insurance Dispute Highlights Pre-Existing Condition Clause

The situation began when the policyholder purchased travel insurance for a family holiday scheduled to begin on December 12, 2023. Shortly after arriving in the U.S., the man was informed of his sister-in-law's critical health decline due to metastatic colorectal cancer. He returned home to be with her in her final days, later resuming his vacation on December 23.

However, upon claiming for the abrupt change in travel plans, the insurer, AWP Australia, denied the claim. They stated that the policy explicitly excluded coverage for incidents related to pre-existing medical conditions of the insured’s relatives. The sister-in-law’s diagnosis of cancer and a pulmonary embolism had been established for nearly a year prior to the start of the policy coverage.

The case highlights a common oversight among travelers: not accounting for family members' significant medical histories while planning their travels. Even though the policy allowed for early return and resumption of journey benefits, these did not apply as the sister-in-law's health condition predated the travel insurance policy.

The policyholder argued that the policy had not explicitly required him to disclose his sister-in-law’s medical background, which he felt was unfair. He also mentioned experiencing substantial financial hardship due to the rejection of his claim. Nevertheless, AFCA supported the insurer's decision.

In summarizing the decision, the AFCA ombudsman stated, “I acknowledge the complainant was not aware that [his sister-in-law] may fall seriously ill and pass away when he commenced his holiday. However, I am satisfied the exchanged information shows death was caused by her pre-existing medical conditions for the purposes of the policy. In the absence of any other information, I am satisfied the insurer is entitled to deny the claim.”

This resolution accentuates the criticality of reading and comprehending the exclusions present in travel insurance policies. Policyholders should be fully aware of what constitutes a pre-existing condition and how it may impact claim eligibility. The case serves as a cautionary tale for travellers to ensure all potential scenarios are accounted for in their insurance coverage. For further details, you can refer to the ruling as noted by Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

Published:Wednesday, 22nd Jan 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Australian Insurers Navigate AI Disruption Fears 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In recent weeks, Australia's leading insurance companies, including Insurance Australia Group (IAG), Suncorp (SUN), and QBE Insurance (QBE), have experienced notable declines in their share prices. This downturn is largely attributed to growing investor concerns about the potential disruptive impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the traditional insurance business model. - read more

Rising Premiums Challenge Australian Insurers in 2026 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In 2026, Australian insurers are grappling with significant challenges as premium affordability becomes a pressing concern. A recent survey by Gallagher Bassett highlights that 70% of insurers have reported increased claim costs and frequencies over the past year. This surge is largely attributed to escalating climate-related losses and inflationary pressures affecting materials and labour costs. - read more

AI-Driven Cyber Insurance Now Available for Australian SMEs 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In a significant development for Australian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), Zurich has partnered with US-based cyber insurance specialist Cowbell to introduce an AI-driven cyber insurance product tailored for businesses with annual turnovers up to $100 million. This collaboration marks a pivotal step in enhancing cyber resilience among Australian SMEs. - read more

AFCA Rules in Favor of Restaurant in Arson Insurance Dispute 05 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori In a landmark decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has directed an insurer to honor an arson-related claim for a restaurant, despite the non-disclosure of the director's criminal history during the policy's inception. This ruling underscores the complexities surrounding disclosure obligations and the interpretation of policy terms. - read more