A travel insurer was entitled to reject a claim for a trip cut short due to the death of a policyholder’s cousin, because the deceased was not a “close relative”.

Nib Travel Services did not discriminate against the claimant when she ended her trip early to attend the family member’s funeral, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has ruled.

The traveller argued the cousin was her closest relative and next of kin. She considered it a closer relationship than many of those allowed under her policy.

Nib’s travel cover defined close relative as “a spouse, de facto partner, parent, parent-in-law, daughter, son, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, brother, sister, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, niece, nephew, grandchildren, grandparent, step-parent, step-children, fiance or fiancee, or legal guardian”.

The claimant said this policy definition went against the generally accepted understanding of a close relative.

More from AFCA: Insurer can’t demand maintenance fixes before paying out

To support her argument, she produced “internet search records from unknown sources” that asserted the term “immediate family” could include cousins.

One said: “The concept of ‘immediate family’ acknowledges that a person has or may feel particular responsibilities towards family members.” It added that some travel policies explicitly included cousins.

AFCA says the claimant’s evidence was unpersuasive and did not show the insurer’s definition fell outside the common understanding of the term “close relative”.

It notes the complainant did not claim to have particular responsibilities towards the cousin.

AFCA rules the coverage was clearly set out and has not been shown to be unfair or discriminatory.

See the full ruling here.