A traveller who was forced to call off a family holiday when her daughter suffered a panic attack before boarding a plane has lost a claim dispute with her insurer.

The mother’s claim was rejected by HDI Global Specialty on the basis the daughter’s anxiety was a pre-existing illness.

But the claimant argued her daughter’s anxiety had not previously affected her ability to travel overseas, which she had done many times, and instead the cancellation was caused by an “acute and previously unexperienced fear of flying”.

In its dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the HDI travel policy excluded losses arising from pre-existing medical conditions, including those treated in the 12 months prior to the policy being bought on November 4 last year. The daughter’s condition met this definition.

AFCA heard the daughter’s doctor provided a letter to her school dated May 29 last year stating the year 11 student experienced anxiety and panic attacks. The GP requested counselling, rest breaks and a separate room during assessments.

Clinical notes from May 8 said the student’s symptoms started in year 8 and had worsened in the preceding year. A diagnosis of anxiety was recorded on May 29.

Related article: Toys, not trees, the root cause of sewage spill

The mother argued this condition was limited to school-related anxiety, which was “situational, context-specific, and unrelated to air travel”.

She accused the insurer of retrospectively conflating unrelated forms of anxiety into a single pre-existing condition, describing it as medically incorrect and contrary to established clinical understanding.

“Anxiety is not a single homogeneous condition, and the policy does not permit such an expansive and speculative interpretation,” she said.

AFCA acknowledges the daughter had no previous issues with anxiety affecting her ability to travel.

But it added: “Anxiety is a medical condition that is not limited to specific settings. It may be exacerbated or known to be impacted by specific settings, however, that does not mean that it will not present itself in other circumstances.”

See the ruling here.