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

CHU Unveils Enhanced Residential Strata Insurance Policy 05 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori CHU, Australia's leading strata insurance underwriting agency, has launched a new residential strata insurance policy designed to better support property owners and strata communities. This initiative reflects CHU's commitment to delivering customer-focused solutions that simplify insurance processes and enhance community resilience. - read more

ICA Advocates for Strata Law Reforms to Mitigate Rising Insurance Costs in Victoria 05 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has called for significant reforms to Victoria's strata legislation, highlighting that poor governance and deferred maintenance are leading to increased insurance premiums for the one in five Victorians residing in strata-titled properties. In a submission to the Expert Panel Review of the Owners Corporations Act 2006, the ICA emphasised that building defects are costing Australians an estimated $1. - read more

Netstrata's Insurance Practices Raise Concerns Over Excessive Fees 05 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori Recent developments have brought to light concerns regarding the insurance practices of Netstrata, a prominent strata management firm in Australia. Clients have reported the sudden appearance of past insurance invoices in their online portals, revealing brokerage fees significantly higher than industry norms. - read more

Allianz Australia Penalised for Misleading Travel Insurance Information 04 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has imposed fines totaling $16.8 million on Allianz Australia Insurance and its subsidiary, AWP Australia, for disseminating misleading information about their travel insurance products between 2016 and 2018. This decision underscores the critical importance of transparency and accuracy in the insurance sector. - read more