A woman whose travel agent incorrectly told her she could claim cover for the cost of a trip cancelled due to unrest in the Red Sea and Suez Canal has lost a dispute with Lloyd’s. 

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority says Lloyd’s had no association with the travel agency and was not obliged to accept the claim based on its advice.

The Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and African cruise was cancelled by the tour provider “due to the war going on”, the woman’s claim lodgment from earlier this year said.  

Lloyd’s said its policy excluded cover for any act of war and declined the claim, and AFCA agrees the event “falls within these policy exclusions”.

The woman argued the non-cruise portion of her tour should not be excluded, but AFCA says without the situation in the Red Sea, the prepaid tour would have proceeded.

The customer said she would not have bought the policy if the exclusions were highlighted on the front page, and it was “unfair to expect one to read over 60 pages of the policy documents”.  

AFCA says responsibility “remained with the complainant to read the terms of the policy and assess if they met her needs”. It was “not feasible for the insurer to highlight the applicable exclusions in the front sections of the policy” because different policy terms may apply based on individual claim circumstances.

See the ruling here.  

In a second recent cruise determination, a man seeking more than $2000 after his itinerary was changed due to weather has lost a claim dispute.

He and his family were covered for the February 2023 cruise under a complimentary AWP Australia policy.

The cruise was moved from New Caledonia and Vanuatu to locations in Queensland.

On returning, the man claimed $2270 for the cost of the cruise, $180 for parking and $309 for internet use.

When AWP declined the claim, he requested that AFCA also grant compensation for stress.  

AWP said he would have incurred parking and internet costs whether the cruise’s travel itinerary was altered or not, and the policy did not cover “loss of enjoyment”.

The dispute authority says AWP decided the claim correctly and promptly.

“There was no unused and unrefunded cruise cost for the policy to respond to,” the dispute determination said. “What the complainant and his family essentially lost was an opportunity to enjoy the cruise based on its original itinerary. However, the policy does not respond to this.”

See the ruling here.  

In a third cruise cover determination, Zurich has lost a dispute over a Kimberley Coast trip cancelled due to a staff strike.

Zurich said operator insolvency was behind the action and that was excluded, but AFCA says there is “no persuasive evidence ... financial difficulties caused the strike or the cancellation”.

The cruise operator had stated in an email that “due to a dispute, a new crew will not be provided”.

An AFCA ombudsman said: “I am satisfied ... that amounts to a strike within both the dictionary and Fair Work Ombudsman website definitions and the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, as a reasonable person would interpret it.”

Zurich tried to rely on the omission of the term strike in liquidator reports to creditors, but AFCA says it is not essential that the strike be mentioned, or that it meets legal terms.

“If the insurer wanted to define or change the definition of the term strike to add in the requirement that strikes be legal under Australian and New Zealand employment law, it had the opportunity to do so. However, it elected not to,” AFCA said.

“It would be unfair to impose this requirement when it is not defined in the product disclosure statement, which is what the contract between the parties is based on.”

See the ruling here.