Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company · DRN-6223090

The complaint Mr and Mrs P complain that Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company (LV) declined their claim against their travel insurance policy. Reference to LV includes its agents. What happened Mr and Mrs P had an annual travel insurance policy underwritten by LV. In January 2025, they booked a trip to a country I will refer to as ‘I’ and planned to travel in September 2025. In June 2025, Mr and Mrs P cancelled their trip and received a partial refund from the travel provider. Mr and Mrs P made a claim against their policy in relation to unrecovered cancellation costs. LV declined the claim. It relied on a general exclusion in the policy in relation to claims caused by or related to terrorism. LV also said travelers to the region of I Mr and Mrs P intended to visit should be aware that it is a volatile area. Mr and Mrs P did not think that was fair and pursued their complaint. They say a general exclusion cannot override specific cover in the policy. Mr and Mrs P say the policy does not say they should be aware the area they intended to visit is volatile. They want LV to settle their claim and pay them compensation for distress and inconvenience. One of our Investigators looked at what had happened. She did not think LV had acted unfairly or unreasonably in declining Mr and Mrs P’s claim in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. Mr and Mrs P did not agree. They responded to say that the general exclusion on which LV relied cannot defeat the cover for cancellation following FCDO advice. Mr and Mrs P say LV’s promotional material says the policy covers terrorism, so it is unfair for LV to decline their claim. The Investigator considered what Mr and Mrs P said but did not change her view. Mr and Mrs P asked that an Ombudsman consider their 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. I have taken into account the law, regulations and good practice. Above all, I’ve considered what is fair and reasonable. The relevant rules and industry guidance say LV 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 decides what risks it is willing to cover and sets 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.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 set out in the policy, the onus shifts to the insurer to show how that exclusion applies. Mr and Mrs P’s policy covers cancellation costs up to the policy limit if they need to cancel a trip for certain, specified reasons. One of the reasons is if the FCDO advise against all travel, or all but essential travel, to their planned destination after they booked transport or accommodation for their trip and after the start date of the policy. I have looked at the FCDO travel advice in place at the time Mr and Mrs P booked their trip on 21 January 2025. The FCDO advised against all travel to the region of I Mr and Mrs P intended to visit. In addition, Mr and Mrs P booked their trip before the policy start date of 23 January 2025. So, the cancellation here does not come within one of the reasons set out in the policy. Mr and Mrs P have not shown that their claim falls under one of the agreed areas of cover within the policy. Even if I reached a different conclusion about that, under ‘What is not covered’ in the cancellation section, Mr and Mrs P are referred to the general exclusions. One of the general exclusions says LV will not cover any claim caused by or in any way related to terrorism. The reason the FCDO gave advice against all travel to the region of I Mr and Mrs P planned to visit was terrorism. I think it is fair and reasonable for LV to rely on that exclusion. I have noted Mr and Mrs P’s claim that a general exclusion cannot override specific cover in the policy. I do not agree. General exclusions may exclude what would otherwise be covered in the policy. Mr and Mrs P have referred to promotional material which refers to cover for delays and cancellations after 24 hours, including delay caused by terrorism. That refers to cover under ‘Section K: Additional transport and/or accommodation costs’. I do not think that affects the outcome of Mr and Mrs P’s complaint. In summary, an insured event has not taken place here. And even if I reached a different conclusion about that, I think LV could fairly and reasonably rely on the general exclusion to which it has referred. I am sorry to disappoint Mr and Mrs P, but for the reasons I have explained, I do not uphold this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P and Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Louise Povey Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --