A holidaymaker whose trip was cut short after she suffered a fall has lost a claims dispute before the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. 

The woman flew to Brazil with her young children on December 30 2023 but injured her back only a few days into the trip.  

She lodged a claim with insurer AWP Australia, which paid out $56,528 for medical expenses and the cost of alternative travel and accommodation. The sum included $33,503 for early return flights to Australia.  

However, the insurer did not cover the woman’s original pre-paid airfares, which cost $13,645.  

The complainant said the pre-paid flights should be covered because “that represents what it would cost to resume the journey she had been on when she was injured”.  

In its dispute decision, AFCA says the policy includes coverage for cancelled and additional travel, and accommodation expenses.

However, it notes that if the claimed services are similar, the policy will pay only for the higher-cost one.

“The alternative return flights the complainant arranged and the original pre-paid flights were clearly for the same or similar services – flights,” the authority said. 

“The insurer reimbursed the complainant $33,503 for the return flights. Self-evidently, that amount is higher than the $13,645 the complainant paid for the original flights.

“Therefore, in line with the policy terms outlined above, the insurer is not obliged to reimburse the cost of the original flights.”  

The authority acknowledges the policy covers the cost of returning home and resuming a journey when a relative’s death or hospitalisation requires breaking an overseas trip, but it says this is not applicable. 

AFCA has also reviewed the complainant’s bid for non-financial loss compensation over the insurer’s allegedly delayed response to her claim, which she said was “incredibly stressful and placed her in a precarious situation”, according to the authority. 

The authority says the claim approval, which came in less than two weeks, was timely and the insurer’s offer of $1000 compensation is reasonable.  

Click here for the ruling.