Great Lakes Insurance Limited · DRN-6203123

The complaint Mrs R and Mrs Y have complained that Great Lakes Insurance Limited has turned down their claim for missed departure under their travel insurance policy. Any reference to Great Lakes includes its agents. Mrs R and Mrs Y are represented by Mr S. What happened Mrs R and Mrs Y made a claim under their travel insurance policy after they missed their flight back to the UK. When they originally submitted the claim they said they were unable to check-in in time to make their flight due to a delay at the airport due to promised wheelchair assistance not arriving. After Great Lakes rejected their claim on the basis the policy did not cover missed departure in such circumstances, Mrs R emailed Great Lakes. In this email she said that they were also too late to check in due to heavy and unforeseen traffic delays on the way to the airport and the airport’s procedure requiring passengers to queue outside for ticket verification. Great Lakes asked Mrs R and Mrs Y to provide evidence of the traffic delays. But when they said they were unable to do so, Great Lakes said it was maintaining its refusal of their claim. Mrs R and Mrs Y complained to Great Lakes, but it wouldn’t alter its position on their claim. Mrs R and Mrs Y asked us to consider their complaint. One of our investigators did this. She said it shouldn’t be upheld because she was satisfied that Great Lakes was entitled to turn down their claim. Mr S has said that Mrs R and Mrs Y do not agree with the investigator’s view and would like an ombudsman’s decision. He’s said Mrs R and Mrs Y have described one continuous chain of events from the start. And that they left their home abroad with a reasonable buffer to reach the airport. But unexpected heavy traffic, not routine congestion, along with emergency stops due to disabilities meant it took longer to get to the airport than they were expecting. Then a serious delay at the entrance to the airport for ticket verification and wheelchair assistance not arriving inside the terminal turned what otherwise would have been a tight arrival into a missed departure. As Mrs R and Mrs Y see it the route-cause of them missing their flight was the unforeseen heavy traffic and stops due to disabilities. And that – if it had not been for these – they would have reached the airport significantly earlier. Mr S has added that the only thing our investigator has relied on is the absence of a specific type of ‘official’ traffic document. And the evidence expectations she has applied is based on a UK infrastructure, not the infrastructure in the country Mrs R and Mrs Y were travelling from. And he does not consider that Consumer Duty has been taken into account or that reasonable adjustments have been made under Equality Act principles for Mrs R’s disability, which he thinks means the evidential requirements for her should have been adjusted by Great Lakes. He has also questioned whether Great Lakes has complied with Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS) rules section 8.

-- 1 of 3 --

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. Having done so I’ve decided not to uphold it. I’ll explain why. Industry rules set out by the regulator (the Financial Conduct Authority) say insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly, which is the section Mr S has referred to in his response to our investigator’s view. I’ve taken these rules, and other industry guidance, into account when deciding what I think is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of Mrs R and Mrs Y’s complaint. Mrs R and Mrs Y’s policy with Great Lakes covers certain insured events. One of these is missed departure and the wording of this section is as follows: We provide to each Insured Person in total per Insured Journey, up to the sum insured shown in the “Summary of cover limits”, in the event that You arrive too late (as shown on Your ticket) to board Your pre-booked scheduled Public Transport at Your last departure point on Your outward journey or Your last departure point on Your return journey as a result of: 1. Scheduled Public Transport services failing to get You to Your last departure point due to Strike or Industrial Action, adverse weather conditions (but not those defined as a Catastrophe), mechanical failure or Your direct involvement in an accident; or 2. The private motor vehicle in which You are travelling being directly involved in an accident or breaking down; or 3. A delay involving the vehicle in which You are travelling due to unexpected and unforeseen heavy traffic or road closures that were sufficiently severe to warrant reporting on a recognised motoring association web site, Highways Agency website, on television, news bulletins or in the press. The first two are not considerations Mrs R and Mrs Y, as it is not in dispute that Mrs R and Mrs Y didn’t arrive late at the airport for their flight back to the UK for these reasons. And the fact that they had to make stops due to disabilities is not covered either. So, for Mrs R and Mrs Y to have a successful claim they needed to have arrived too late to board their pre-booked flight as a result of unforeseen heavy traffic. And the policy does require there to have been some sort of reporting of this an official website, on television, in news bulletins or in the press. So, while I accept that traffic delays in the country Mrs R and Mrs Y were travelling from was unlikely to appear on an official website, on television or in the press, I do think they needed to provide more than just their testimony in support of their claim. This is because the policy requires them to provide reasonable information in support of their claim. And, in any event, it is for them to do this in the first instance to establish they have a valid claim as a result of an insured event. As I’ve said, the only evidence Mrs R and Mrs Y provided was their own testimony. It is not for me to say what evidence they could have provided, but even allowing for some leeway due to the country they were in, I think Great Lakes request for independent evidence was reasonable. And if Mrs R and Mrs Y had produced some sort of independent evidence, I would have expected Great Lakes to consider it. But, as they didn’t, I think Great Lakes rejection of their claim was reasonable.

-- 2 of 3 --

I have noted Mr S’s point that Great Lakes needed to make reasonable adjustments due to Mrs R’s disability and I am satisfied it did this. I say this because it did not discount Mrs R’s testimony that she and Mrs Y were also delayed in traffic, even though she didn’t share this until it had rejected their claim. It simply asked for evidence to support it. Therefore, I’m satisfied that Great Lakes met all of its obligations to Mrs R and Mrs Y when it considered and then rejected their claim. It therefore follows that I do not consider it would be appropriate for me to require Great Lakes to accept Mrs R and Mrs Y’s claim or pay them compensation. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I’ve do not uphold Mrs R and Mrs Y’s complaint about Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs R and Mrs Y to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Robert Short Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --