Originally Posted by
BA or bust
A key principle of insurance is that it is designed to put you into the same financial position as if the ‘insured event’ had not happened. So your insurer is taking this approach, arguing that BA is paying you more (for whatever reason) than the cost of your Ryanair flights. So financially, they will argue that you are no worse off.
However it is a grey area and I think you should argue the case that the two amounts, one for the cost of the new flights and the other for the inconvenience are entirely separate.If you can convince them then the payout from the insurers should be the difference between your Ryanair flight costs and the BA refund amount.
PS Not sure how they know about the compensation amount, unless you told them?
Many thanks for everyone's comments and the advice to argue that they are separate. They asked for a letter from BA confirming any compensation and whether additional costs covered. Their argument is indeed being based on me being financially better off; however had I chosen to take BA's alternate flight then I would still have been better off as the compensation would have been paid regardless. The fact I chose to arrange alternative travel arrangement at additional costs is specifically covered in their inclusions due to the alternate flight being over 12hrs later. I'll argue the compensation is recompense for BA failing to deliver there promised service and the resulting stress and inconvenience caused (significant). The subsequent additional cost incurred to arrange additional travel costs is completely separate. I'll take to ombudsman if necessary as nothing to lose,