Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited · DRN-6229601

The complaint Mr L complains that Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited declined his claim against his travel insurance policy. Reference to Admiral includes its agents. What happened Mr L had an annual travel insurance policy underwritten by Admiral. On his return journey, Mr L’s first flight from a country I will refer to as ‘U’ to a country I will refer to as ‘C’ was delayed because of severe weather conditions. That meant he missed his flight from C to the UK. Mr L made a claim against his policy in relation to unused and additional costs. Admiral declined the claim. It said the affected flight was between two non-UK destinations and the policy only covers the final departure from or to the UK. Mr L didn’t think that was fair and complained to Admiral. He said his claim was not for the delay to the flight between U and C: his claim related to his missed flight from C to the UK. In response to Mr L’s complaint, Admiral referred to ‘1. Missed International Departure’ provisions in the policy and said cover is only provided when the insured misses the final departure of a return journey to the UK due to a delay of ‘scheduled public transport’. It said the policy’s definition of ‘scheduled public transport’ does not include connecting transport between two non-UK countries. Admiral said Mr L was delayed between U and C, two non-UK countries, so what happened here isn’t covered by the policy. Mr L pursued his complaint about Admiral’s decision to decline his claim. He also complained about how Admiral had handled his complaint. One of our Investigators looked at what had happened. He did not think Admiral had acted fairly in declining Mr L’s claim. The Investigator said Mr L’s policy covers a missed final departure on a return journey to the UK where that’s caused by severe weather conditions. He recommended that Admiral reconsider Mr L’s claim in line with the remaining terms of the policy and pay him compensation of £100 in relation to his distress and inconvenience. Admiral didn’t agree. It said it is clear under ‘2. International travel delay’ that the policy does not cover delays to connecting transport between two non-UK countries. Admiral said the policy definition of ‘scheduled public transport’ does not include transport between two non-UK countries. It said this is shown in the summary table in the policy. Admiral said it is also clear in the Insurance Product Information Document (IPID) that there’s no travel delay cover for any international flight, other than the final departure leaving the UK or the final departure returning to the UK. Admiral asked that an Ombudsman consider the complaint, so it was passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr L has expressed concern about how Admiral handled his complaint. Our service can only consider complaints about financial services. So, I can’t consider the additional points Mr L has raised about the handling of his complaint, because it is not a regulated activity. In this decision, I’m looking at whether Admiral acted in accordance with the policy terms and fairly and reasonably in its handling of his claim. I’ve taken into account the law, regulations and good practice. Above all, I’ve considered what’s fair and reasonable. The relevant rules and industry guidance say Admiral has a responsibility to handle claims promptly and fairly and must act to deliver good outcomes for retail consumers. Insurance policies are not designed to cover every eventuality or situation. An insurer, Admiral in this case, will decide what risks it is willing to cover and set these out in the policy. In general terms, and as long as consumers are treated fairly, insurers can decide what risks they wish to cover. The onus is on the consumer to show the claim falls under one of the agreed areas of cover within the policy. If the event is covered in principle but is declined on the basis of an exclusion in the policy, the onus shifts to Admiral to show how that exclusion applies. I think there’s been confusion in this case. Mr L’s claim is for unused and additional costs following his missed departure from C to the UK, not for the delay benefit following the delay of his flight from U to C. The starting point is the terms and conditions of the policy, the relevant part of which says as follows: ‘Section 4: Missed departure, travel delay or abandoned trip 1. Missed international departure (If you missed boarding your transport but it left on time) We cover you if you miss: • […] • the final departure of your return journey to the UK; […] What is covered We will pay up to the policy limits shown in the policy schedule to cover the cost of unused accommodation, and reasonable costs for additional accommodation and onward travel to enable you to continue with your trip, if you fail to arrive at your international departure point in time to board you pre-booked aircraft […] for any of the following reasons. • […] • A strike, industrial action or severe weather conditions caused an unexpected delay to your journey.’ Mr L’s flight from C to the UK was his final departure on his return to the UK. He failed to arrive at his international departure point in C in time to board his flight to the UK because of severe weather conditions. Admiral said cover is only provided when the insured misses the final departure of a return journey to the UK due to a delay of scheduled public transport. That is not the case: there is also cover under the relevant section for missing a final departure on a return to the UK because of severe weather conditions, which is what happened here. The fact that the policy’s definition of ‘scheduled public transport’ does not include connecting transport between two non-UK countries is not relevant to Mr L’s claim. Both the part of the policy I’ve set out above and the summary table to which Admiral has referred

-- 2 of 3 --

show there is cover for missed departure due to severe weather conditions and not only because of the delay or cancellation of ‘scheduled public transport’. As I have said above, Mr L’s claim was not for the delay benefit for international travel delay following the delay of his flight from U to C. Admiral refers to the exclusion of connecting flights between two non-UK counties but that exclusion relates to the cover in ‘2 International travel delay’, which is not relevant here. Similarly, the exclusion to which Admiral refers in the IPID relates to travel delay, not missed international departure. Mr L has shown that his claim falls under one of the agreed areas of cover within the policy – ‘1. Missed international departure’. I don’t think Admiral has shown there is any relevant exclusion. It follows that I don’t think Admiral acted fairly and reasonably in declining Mr L’s claim. I think a fair resolution of the complaint is for Admiral to reconsider Mr L’s claim taking into account what I have said above and the remaining terms and conditions of the policy. Mr L has suffered distress and inconvenience as a result of Admiral declining his claim incorrectly. I think fair compensation in relation to that is £100. In reaching that view, I have taken into account the nature, extent and duration of Mr L’s distress and inconvenience caused by Admiral’s error in this case. Putting things right In order to put things right, Admiral should: • reconsider Mr L’s claim taking into account what I have said above and the remaining terms and conditions of the policy and; • pay Mr L compensation of £100 in relation to his distress and inconvenience. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited should now take the steps I have set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Louise Povey Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --