A traveller who cancelled a flight to Tel Aviv last October due to the Israel-Gaza conflict has failed to have his losses covered because of a war exclusion, despite arguing he was misled about the policy.

The cover was issued by an AIG Australia authorised representative on August 13 for travel from October 3-27. The man’s plans included an October 15 flight from Britain to Israel to attend a conference in Jerusalem, and an onwards flight to Malta.

On October 8, he emailed the representative saying that, given the situation in Israel, the trip may not proceed. He asked for advice on how to claim for prepaid airfares and accommodation.

The representative’s reply outlined policy benefits and provided a copy of the product disclosure statement, a link to the claim form and Emergency Assistance Team contact details. 

The email said the traveller should “keep in mind that all decisions regarding reimbursement of claims will be made by the claims department and will be based on the policy terms, conditions and exclusions, as well as documentation you provide when you file a claim”.

An email between the complainant and the conference organiser dated October 9 confirmed a state of war had been declared by Israel.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the conference was cancelled because of bombing and unsafe conditions.

Its ruling on the dispute acknowledges the complainant thought his claim would be honoured, but the authority is not satisfied he was misled by the representative over whether the claim for cancellation and additional expenses would be covered.

“The response specifically informed the complainant that his claim would be assessed based on the supporting evidence once submitted,” AFCA says.

The insurer denied the claim because the policy excluded losses due to war, invasion, revolution or any similar event, any terrorist act, and military and/or government intervention.

“The change of travel plans due to the war in Israel was unexpected and out of his control. The policy, however, excludes cover for claims arising from a war,” AFCA’s decision says. “It would be unfair to expect the insurer to cover claims outside the agreed policy terms.”

The complainant argued that if he had known his claim may not be covered, he may have extended his stay in Britain or travelled directly to Malta, but AFCA says even if it were to accept he was misled, it is not satisfied he has shown he relied on the misrepresentation to his detriment.

The decision is available here.