Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited · DRN-6160452

The complaint Mr M complains because Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited hasn’t paid the full amount of a claim under his travel insurance policy. All references to Great Lakes Insurance UK Limited include the agents appointed to handle claims and complaints on its behalf. What happened Mr M was insured under a travel insurance policy provided by Great Lakes. Unfortunately, while Mr M was abroad on holiday, his travelling companion became unwell and was admitted to hospital. Mr M remained abroad past the expected end date of his holiday, until he was repatriated to the UK by his travelling companion’s insurer. Mr M’s travelling companion’s insurer also paid for Mr M’s additional accommodation costs. Mr M made a claim under the ‘curtailment and loss of holiday’ section of his own policy, for some of the original accommodation costs as well as flights, taxi fares and telephone calls. Great Lakes paid part of Mr M’s claim, but said it wouldn’t pay for the unused return flight to the UK, the taxis or the telephone calls. Unhappy, Mr M complained to Great Lakes before bringing the matter to the attention of our Service. One of our Investigators looked into what had happened and said he didn’t think Great Lakes had acted unfairly or unreasonably in the circumstances. Mr M didn’t agree with our Investigator’s opinion, so the complaint has now been referred to me to make a decision as the final stage in our process. 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. I’m sorry to hear about Mr M’s experiences abroad, which I have no doubt must have been very worrying and stressful. Industry rules set out by the regulator say insurers must handle claims fairly and shouldn’t unreasonably reject a claim. I’ve taken these rules, alongside other relevant considerations, into account when making this final decision. The terms and conditions of Mr M’s policy provide for a refund of unused, pre-booked travel expenses in certain circumstances where an insured’s travelling companion falls ill. But this is subject to the general insurance principle of indemnity. This means an insured can generally only claim for their actual financial loss and cannot profit from the insurance. I understand Mr M’s return flight was unused as a direct result of his travelling companion’s illness. But Mr M would always need to have paid to return to the UK after his holiday. If Great Lakes were to reimburse him for his unused return flight, then Mr M would, in effect,

-- 1 of 2 --

have had a ‘free’ flight back to the UK. This isn’t the intention of travel insurance and wouldn’t be fair or reasonable in the circumstances. And asking Great Lakes to pay for Mr M’s unused return flight wouldn’t have the effect of putting Mr M back into the financial position he would have been in had the insured event not happened anyway. I understand Mr M’s holiday was impacted by his travelling companion’s illness to the extent that he says he totally lost his holiday, but travel insurance doesn’t cover loss of enjoyment so this isn’t a reason upon which I could fairly ask Great Lakes to pay the costs Mr M is seeking to recover. However, I do think Great Lakes could have done more to clearly explain to Mr M why the unused return flight wasn’t covered. I don’t think the taxi costs which Mr M is claiming for are covered under his policy either. The policy terms and conditions specifically exclude claims for taxi fares for the insured visiting another person in hospital. I also don’t think there is any section of Mr M’s policy which covers telephone calls in these circumstances. But these may be covered under Mr M’s travelling companion’s insurance policy if Mr M wishes to explore this further. I’m sorry to disappoint Mr M but, for these reasons, I won’t be directing Great Lakes to do anything more. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr M’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Leah Nagle Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --