Can travel insurance refuse a claim because I'd been drinking?
Yes, and a published decision shows how far an insurer can take that. In Financial Ombudsman Service decision DRN-5872626, read on 17 September 2026, Mr and Mrs B were on their way back to a hotel after a show when Mrs B tripped on a kerb and fractured her ankle. A blood test at 8.22pm, about two hours later, recorded her blood alcohol at 95 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. The legal limit for drivers in England is 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres. The insurer, AWP P&C S.A., declined the medical costs claim under its alcohol exclusion, and the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.
The clause AWP relied on is the standard one, no cover for loss resulting directly or indirectly from the use or abuse of alcohol or drugs, or any related physical symptoms. Mr and Mrs B argued the term was buried on page 32 of the policy and that Mrs B was not drunk, the fall came from rushing to cross a road while dehydrated. The ombudsman agreed the wording was clear and, on balance, sided with the insurer anyway. What decided it was not one number but how that number was used against everything else in the file, which is worth reading in full before you assume your own claim would go the same way.
What did the ombudsman find in this alcohol exclusion case?
Mr and Mrs B held a single trip policy for a trip that ran from 26 August to 10 September 2024. Mrs B's own account was a glass of champagne before lunch, a cocktail during lunch, and a glass of wine during a show that started at 4.30pm and ran about 1.5 hours. The fall happened shortly after leaving the show, around 6pm, when the couple crossed a road in a rush and she tripped from the kerb. Paramedics noted she was dehydrated with low blood pressure. Neither of those was in the medical report.
AWP's own reading of the case leaned on one fact the couple could not dispute, the blood test came about two hours after the fall, and the insurer argued the alcohol level at the time of the trip would have been higher still. Mr and Mrs B countered that the sample itself, taken by the hospital, should not be used against them, and that legal driving limits have nothing to do with a person walking. The ombudsman rejected both points. The driving limit was used only as context for how far above typical the reading sat, and a hospital blood sample is documentary evidence the ombudsman is required to weigh.
The final decision, issued after a provisional finding the couple contested, did not uphold the complaint. Mr and Mrs B had until 7 November 2025 to accept or reject it.
How much can you drink before travel insurance won't pay?
There is no published units figure that triggers an alcohol exclusion, because the clause does not set one. What DRN-5872626 gives instead is a real case with the numbers insurers and ombudsmen actually compare, which is closer to a useful answer than any generic drinks-per-day rule.
| Measure | Figure in this case | Where it came from |
|---|---|---|
| Blood alcohol reading | 95mg per 100ml of blood | Hospital blood test, 8.22pm, about two hours after the fall |
| Legal limit for drivers in England | 80mg per 100ml of blood | The benchmark AWP and the ombudsman both used for context |
| Drinks Mrs B described | Champagne, a cocktail, a glass of wine, over several hours | Her own account, not disputed by the ombudsman |
| Outcome | Complaint not upheld | Final decision, acceptance deadline 7 November 2025 |
What evidence do insurers use to apply an alcohol exclusion?
Reading the decision line by line, four separate kinds of evidence carried the case, and each one is worth checking for in your own claim file if you are ever in this position.
- A documentary reading. A hospital blood test is treated as harder evidence than a witness account, even one from paramedics on scene. The ombudsman said it could not fairly ignore the reading simply because it embarrassed the claimant.
- A benchmark for context. The 80 milligram driving limit was not applied as a rule, Mrs B was not driving, but as a reference point for how far above an accepted threshold the reading sat. The ombudsman used it to judge scale, not to apply a legal test that did not fit the facts.
- What the medical report leaves out. There was no mention of dehydration or low blood pressure in the medical report itself, only in the couple's account of what paramedics said. Absence of a contrary note in the contemporaneous record counted against the couple, not for them.
- An extrapolation argument. AWP argued that because the test came two hours after the fall, the reading at the time of the incident would likely have been higher, not lower. The ombudsman accepted that reasoning without a second test to confirm it, which is the part of the decision worth flagging if you are contesting a similar claim.
Can you challenge an alcohol exclusion with the ombudsman?
Yes, and it costs nothing to try. The Financial Ombudsman Service takes travel insurance complaints once your insurer has given a final response, or once eight weeks have passed without one, and its stated principle is that it is for the insurer to show an exclusion fairly applies, not for you to disprove it. That principle is exactly why the investigator in DRN-5872626 initially upheld the complaint, before the ombudsman's own review reversed it on the same facts.
What changes the outcome case by case is the evidence on file at the time of the claim, not the wording of the policy, which insurers rarely vary on this exclusion. Our travel insurance guide lists what to check before you buy, and a policy's alcohol clause is worth reading alongside the excess and the claims deadline rather than after a claim is refused. If your own claim touches a payout an airline already made, what an insurer can deduct is a related clause worth knowing before you file. Every figure on this page was read from a public decision on the date shown, and our method sets out how.