INSURANCE - DOES CURTAILMENT EXCLUDE DISRUPTION

PeterHDC

My wife and I went to New Zealand in mid March before the government Covid travel ban.  We hired a Motorhome for travel around North Island and South Island.  NZ Lockdown occurred part way through our holiday.  We were then forced to be stationary in our hired Motorhome, forbidden to travel other than to shops or to the airport for repatriation flights.   After much regular searching we found an economical flight home at the earliest opportunity, but we had to stay locked in the same place for about three weeks which coincidentally timed up to about the end date of our originally planned tour of the country.  Insurers have declined to pay out on the hire of the Motorhome, saying this was not holiday curtailment and they are are not paying out on any pre-booked accommodation.  I would say my case is disruption certainly, as well as curtailment of our "holiday".  Also a Motorhome by definition is a moveable beast yet we were not able to use it as intended.  Insurers are a member of ABI.  I am likely to take this to the Insurance Ombudsman as it seems to be an unreasonable decision by the Insurers in such unprecedented circumstances.  Any thoughts or similar experiences ? 

[Deleted User]

It seems a reasonable interpretation that the holiday was not curtailed, as you kept use of the motorhome and stayed in New Zealand, even if you didn't get the miles done you wanted. 

Check to see if there is a more suitable clause you could claim under.

mattyprice4004

Curtailment usually refers to a shorter duration - so I'd say you need to find another applicable clause (loss of enjoyment?)
If there isn't anything relevant, it might just be 'one of those things' as it's not really anyone's fault. 

lincroft1710

As you were using the motorhome for accommodation I can understand your insurer's reluctance to pay out. Your rental of it was not curtailed.

Galloglass

Depends what you want to do. If they are now saying you are at the end of their process, there should be information on what to do if you do not want to accept their view of the matter. It is usually the Financial Ombudsman.

For the sake of a few letters, it is worth taking it further. But it's your time.

PS: There has just been a high court case on business interruption insurance where the insurers and the FCA/FOS were in disagreement about what certain terms meant. The FCA have got their way mainly, so they (FOS) should be the arbiter of any clause and its meaning.

lincroft1710

I would suggest that as a motorhome provides accommodation, of which you were able to take full advantage, your only restriction was that for 3 weeks, you were not able to travel (except for essential supplies) and thus effectively had a static caravan. Thus your only possible claim would be the difference between 3 weeks hire of the motorhome and that of a static caravan. That would only be claimable if there is a loss of enjoyment clause in the policy.  

Nebulous2

I was locked down in New Zealand and have a curtailment claim in progress. We had no accommodation costs as we were staying with our son. Motorhomes in New Zealand are extremely expensive and there may be an argument that you could have found cheaper accommodation. The argument that it was pre-booked sounds reasonable to me.