A traveller whose flight was made to turn around mid-air due to a government-ordered airspace closure had her claim denied because the circumstances were not covered by her group travel policy.  

The complainant, who had been a beneficiary of the policy through her credit card provider, sought to be reimbursed for the cancelled flight and additional costs.  

Insurer Chubb declined the claim, stating that the loss did not result from any of the specified events listed.  

The policy covers curtailed flights due to a border closure if the Australian government issues an upgraded advisory warning for travellers to reconsider or avoid travel to the destination country after the trip has begun. 

Cancellation coverage is also provided if such warnings are issued while the policy is active.  

But the insurer says the diversion had no connection to a new advisory warning and that a “Reconsider Your Need to Travel” warning had been in place for the country for several months before the complainant’s trip last June.  

The complainant says it was within the policy’s framework to cover unforeseen disruptions or escalations once travel has started, such as airport closures.  

She argues that the event could be considered “a transport disruption caused by public order/safety measures”.  

In its dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the policy was “not a cover for unforeseen events in general” and that the claimed loss was not included.  

“The policy’s intent is to provide limited cover for trip cancellation and amendment costs,” the authority said.  

“This is clear because the policy sets out only 12 scenarios in which the benefit will be activated.”  

The claimant also alleged that she was told during a phone call with her card provider that Chubb would “cover under a Reconsider Your Need to Travel advisory and would only be voided if the status were to escalate to Do Not Travel”.  

But AFCA says there was no evidence to show that this occurred and that, in any event, the card provider was not authorised to provide advice about the insurance on behalf of the insurer.  

See the ruling here.