An Australian who was not allowed to board the first leg of a flight home from Colombia has won a claim dispute.

An airline system incorrectly listed the woman’s US visa as cancelled and she was denied entry to the America-bound plane.

Her travel cover claim was later denied by Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance, which said the incident fell under an exclusion for errors and omissions in booking arrangements, or failure to obtain the relevant documents.

But the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the policyholder made no errors.

“I am not satisfied the insurer has shown the exclusion it seeks to rely on applies,” an ombudsman said.

“A booking arrangement is the purchasing and booking of the ticket. I do not accept the check-in process is part of the booking process.”

Related article: AFCA rules on a home away from home and $370k of missing jewellery

AFCA says the incorrect refusal to let the woman board the plane met the policy definition of an accident involving means of transport that disrupted her trip.

“It did not arise from an error or omission in booking arrangements or a failure to obtain the relevant visa,” AFCA’s ombudsman said.

“It was an unexpected, unintended or unforeseeable incident.”

Tokio Marine earlier rejected a preliminary AFCA assessment and highlighted “external, identifiable” events in its definition of accident.

“As the aircraft was not involved in an accident, we do not agree that this clause is applicable to the complainant’s circumstances,” the insurer said.

“An accident involving an insured’s means of transport might include bird strike. This is because the bird is external to the aircraft ... Other examples could include ground vehicle collisions on the runway or damage caused by severe weather conditions. These events are external, identifiable and therefore may meet the policy definition of an accident.”

But AFCA’s ombudsman says the airline’s computer system was also external to the aircraft – and the error was identifiable – so the denial of boarding due to a system error was covered.

“The error is an external, identifiable event. I am also satisfied the unexpected, unintended or unforeseeable incident – denial of boarding – was caused solely and directly by the airline’s computer system error.

“Boarding an aircraft can be fairly and reasonably described as involving the aircraft.

“The examples provided by the insurer show the accident does not need to directly impact the aircraft. Boarding is a necessary condition of and within the scope of operation of the mode of transport – denying boarding of an aircraft has an association with the mode of transport.”

See the ruling here.

---

From the latest Insurance News magazine: Why Zurich's local GI chief is upbeat about growth opportunities in the Australian market

---