Battle lines drawn

The ongoing issue of unpaid claims arising from the Icelandic volcanic ash eruption of April 2010 is not yet put to bed, as Europ Assistance in the UK has now launched a legal challenge against the country’s Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). In March this year, the FOS ruled that travel insurers should base their decision on whether or not to pay out for volcanic ash cloud claims on a key ruling that earlier found in favour of the consumer, when the FOS concluded that the ash cloud was in fact a ‘weather’ event, and therefore insurers should pay out on claims received that were related to delays and cancellations that occurred as a result of closed airspace over Europe. Although many insurers accepted that decision and paid out on claims, Europ Assistance is now challenging it by asking for a judicial review to take place. The company still reportedly has 300 customers who are waiting to see if their claims will be paid, all of whom will now have to wait for the court to decide their fate.
ITIJ spoke to Europ Assistance to confirm proceedings were taking place. The company responded: “We can confirm that Europ Assistance has applied to the High Court in London for judicial review of the decision of the FOS in the volcanic ash claims. The application was made in June 2011.We understand that the FOS has published information on its website and written to over 300 policyholders, advising them of the further delay caused by the application for judicial review proceedings.In order that our position is clear we would point out that the FOS determination took many months although, throughout, Europ Assistance responded promptly to all requests for information.” It added:“Further, prior to the issue of court proceedings, in April 2011 we asked the Ombudsman to agree to expedition for the judicial review with a view to achieving early resolution and it was the Ombudsman who refused to do so.We would also point out that the Ombudsman acknowledged the right of a third party to apply for judicial review of their decision. We are, therefore, particularly disappointed that FOS has since chosen not to work with us proactively to seek early clarity on this issue on behalf of travellers and insurers alike.”

ShareThis

View the original article here