A wedding day gone awry was the focus of an Australian Financial Complaints Authority hearing as newlyweds tried to claw back more money under their insurance policy.

The couple married on March 8 2024 at 12.30pm, but by 1.30pm the bride had suffered heatstroke and needed hospital treatment.

Guests arrived at the reception at 6pm, but the newlyweds did not make it there until 7.20pm, after leaving hospital.

The couple told AFCA they missed out on their wedding photos in the afternoon, a visit to an unwell family member and a large part of the celebrations.

They were unable to fully use various packages supplied by wedding vendors and sought $27,903 for this loss under a HDI Global Specialty wedding insurance policy.

They also claimed for costs associated with suppliers failing to provide correct invitations under a supplier failure provision.

One invitation company provided incorrectly printed RSVP cards. The couple did not receive a refund and the supplier stopped responding to them. Another company agreed to refund their deposit after an order was cancelled before printing, but the sum was never paid and this supplier also stopped responding to them.

Related article: Travel insurer told to cover cruise voucher value

HDI accepted part of the couple’s claim but said “additional damage” was not covered by its insured events policy.

AFCA has sided with the insurer, saying the couple has not established a valid claim for postponement or supplier failure.

The policy covered non-refundable wedding expenses when a wedding party member becomes unwell, resulting in postponement or cancellation of the event.

AFCA notes that while the couple spent part of their day in hospital, the wedding proceeded.

“This does not meet the policy definition of postponement, which requires the wedding to be deferred to a later date.”

And there is no evidence either invitation supplier became insolvent or entered liquidation – a required trigger under the policy.

An AFCA member said: “I have considered the complainants’ submissions that the policy should be read as a whole and was intended to cover unforeseen wedding-related expenses, and that they acted in good faith to mitigate their loss by proceeding with the wedding.

“I acknowledge their disappointment and the impact of the circumstances. However, the policy only responds to specific insured events that are clearly defined. It is not intended to cover all unforeseen outcomes, and the terms are clear in this regard.”

See the ruling here.