Unvaccinated travellers lose dispute over cover denial

A traveller who lodged a claim after she was not allowed to board her booked flight and mandated to complete a 14-day quarantine because of her covid vaccination status has lost an appeal to overturn her insurer’s decision to deny coverage.

The woman and her husband were blocked from boarding their international flight to Sydney because they were unvaccinated and were required to book a new flight to Perth to quarantine.

The complainant wanted her travel insurance policy to cover flight, accommodation, and rental car costs, as well as a reported loss of income.

Zurich Australia said its policy excluded covid-related claims barring circumstances covered by its covid benefits section.

The policy outlined that it would not pay for events where a person could have “reasonably known or foreseen” that their journey could be delayed, abandoned, or cancelled.

At the time of the event, travellers to Australia were required to have proof of appropriate vaccination status, which the couple did not.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) determined that the insurer was entitled to apply appropriate exclusions given covid had been the proximate cause of the loss.

The policy did include cover for losses associated with cancelled or delayed travel arrangements due to a covid diagnosis. AFCA acknowledged that the couple had been diagnosed with the virus while overseas but said they had recovered by the time of the flight.

“The denial of the boarding of the flight to Sydney was caused by the complainant’s unvaccinated status not because of a diagnosis of Covid-19,” AFCA said.

AFCA said the woman was informed of the policy terms, including exclusions by Zurich Australia, in relevant documents, and that it would be unfair to require the insurer to cover the associated costs.

The ruling dismissed the complainant’s request to have the insurer provide her compensation on a “good faith” basis for circumstances “out of her control”.

It acknowledged that the situation was traumatic for the couple but said it would be inappropriate to require Zurich Australia to pay any costs.

Click here for the full ruling.