Travel Insurance Dispute Highlights Pre-Existing Condition Clause

2

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

ClearView Names New Underwriting Head Amidst Strategic Changes 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori ASX-listed life insurer ClearView has announced the appointment of Peter Tilocca as Head of Underwriting, coinciding with key updates to its underwriting standards and definitions. Tilocca's extensive two-decade career in Australian underwriting includes leadership roles at Zurich, Noble Oak, One Path Life, and RGA Australia. His new role with ClearView commenced on 30 June. - read more

Ombudsman Supports Theft Claimant in Home Business Coverage Dispute 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent case has seen a policyholder triumph over her insurer after the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled in her favour following a contentious dispute regarding home business operations. The controversy arose when the woman's theft claim was denied by her insurance provider, IAG, over allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation about the use of her rental property. - read more

AFCA Upholds Insurance Fraud Ruling Over Disputed Possum Accident 26 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A motorist's claim that he crashed into a tree to avoid a possum has been denied by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which supported the insurer's fraud decision. The incident involved the driver crashing his Jeep—insured for over $20,000—on a dimly-lit street, purportedly avoiding the rain-soaked motorway en route to the store. - read more

Code Watchdog Criticises Insurer for Misleading Rejection Letters 24 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Life Code Compliance Committee has recently reprimanded a life insurance provider for issuing misleading rejection letters to policy applicants. These letters were deemed 'ambiguous and contradictory' and failed to clearly inform applicants of their review options after being denied coverage. - read more