Travel insurance statistics reveal a market shaped by rising travel, weather disruption, medical risk, and concern about losing prepaid trip costs. The figures below cover different periods and geographies: EIOPA data focuses on European insurers and 2017 travel activity, while Aon and Allianz sources describe U.S. travelers and more recent surveys.
Contents
- Market scale and policy growth
- How European travel insurance performs
- Claims acceptance and coverage exclusions
- Why Americans buy travel insurance
- Weather, disruption, and medical risk
- Traveler demographics and international trips
- Policy limits and purchase timing
Market scale and policy growth
EIOPA’s Consumer Protection Issues in Travel Insurance review surveyed 201 insurance undertakings operating across 29 European countries. The questionnaire covered undertakings representing approximately 60% of total travel-insurance gross written premium (GWP) in their national markets. These figures describe a broad European review, but not every insurer or every market.
The EIOPA travel-insurance factsheet shows 70 million new policies in 2015, 73 million in 2016, and 83 million in 2017. The same policy chart shows a 13.3% year-over-year growth rate at the 2017 peak and also records a 3.7% year-over-year growth point in the series. The chart’s policy counts and growth points should be read as the factsheet presents them rather than as a current global total.
Travel activity was also increasing in the factsheet’s 2017 context. International arrivals to Europe increased 8.4% in 2017, compared with a 7% global average increase. Outbound tourism from European nations rose 3.7%. EU residents made 1.5 billion trips in 2017, and 62% of EU residents made at least one personal trip that year. These are travel-activity measures, not insurance-purchase rates, but they help explain the potential customer base.
How European travel insurance performs
EIOPA reported average travel-insurance commissions of 24% of GWP and an average claims ratio of 40% of GWP. The factsheet compared those results with non-life insurance overall: commissions were 24% for travel insurance versus 15% across non-life insurance, while claims ratios were 40% versus 53%.
The comparison below uses the figures shown in EIOPA’s travel-insurance factsheet.
| Measure | Travel insurance | Non-life insurance overall |
|---|---|---|
| Commissions | 24% | 15% |
| Claims ratio | 40% | 53% |
| Expenses | 20% | 17% |
| Net underwriting result | 15% | 19% |
Travel-insurance expenses were 20% compared with 17% for non-life insurance overall. The net underwriting result was 15% for travel insurance versus 19% for non-life insurance overall. These measures are not interchangeable: a commission is a distribution cost, a claims ratio compares claims with GWP, and the net underwriting result is a separate profitability measure.
The averages conceal substantial variation. EIOPA found that some travel insurers paid commissions significantly above 50% of premium, while some had claims ratios below 20% of GWP. In the factsheet, 38 insurance undertakings paid commissions above the 24% average while also having claims ratios below the 40% average. EIOPA also said some insurers paid commissions above 24% of GWP while keeping claims ratios below 40% of GWP.
The factsheet described one case in which 77% of consumer premiums went to distributors. In that same case, consumers received only €14 in claims for every €100 of premium paid. EIOPA reported another case where distributors were paid 5.5 times more in commission than consumers received back in claims. These are individual cases identified in the review, not averages for the whole market.
Claims acceptance and coverage exclusions
The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) reviewed claims handling at 8 travel-insurance providers. Its review also covered 15 home-insurance providers, for a total of 23 providers. In REP019 value-measures data covering 2022 through 2024, the FCA recorded over 1.5 million travel claims, of which 79% were accepted. Across home and travel claims in that dataset, more than £9 billion was paid to customers.
The FCA figures measure claim outcomes in a defined dataset and period. They do not establish that 79% of claims are accepted in every country, policy type, or future year. They do show why acceptance rate and total claims paid are useful statistics to examine alongside premiums and policy wording.
Medical exclusions are another important part of the European picture. Around 70% of insurers in EIOPA’s review excluded pre-existing medical conditions from travel-insurance coverage. Most insurers in the review did not use pre-contractual medical screening. Because the figures concern insurer practices in EIOPA’s review, travelers should not treat them as a rule for every policy; the actual definition of a pre-existing condition and any screening requirement depends on the contract.
EIOPA’s factsheet also said some insurers had claims ratios below 35% of GWP, with the number increasing when the threshold was raised further. That observation reinforces the difference between a market average and the distribution of results among insurers.
Why Americans buy travel insurance
Aon’s 2024 survey interviewed 2,076 U.S. adults aged 18 and older. Aon reported sampling precision of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points at 95% confidence. In that survey, 50% of Americans said they had purchased travel insurance. The purchase pattern was mixed: 15% bought it for every trip, 21% for several trips, and 14% for only one trip.
The leading reasons were financial and practical. Forty-one percent bought coverage to avoid losing money if they had to cancel. Thirty-nine percent feared unexpected issues before departure after booking months in advance. Twenty-eight percent worried about getting sick and being unable to travel. Twenty-six percent cited bad weather or a natural disaster. Twenty-two percent wanted supplemental medical coverage while traveling abroad.
Other concerns also influenced decisions. Twenty-one percent cited uncertainty with the economy, and 19% cited global conflicts. These percentages describe reasons reported by respondents; they are not mutually exclusive, so they should not be added as if each traveler selected only one reason.
Weather, disruption, and medical risk
Aon’s 2025 weather-risk survey interviewed more than 2,000 American adults aged 18 and older. Eighty percent had traveled in the past year, and 60% of those travelers experienced some type of travel disruption. Among Americans who experienced a disruption, 44% said it was due to a weather delay, up from 28% in 2019.
Weather also changed destination decisions. Fifty-six percent of Americans were reconsidering travel to destinations prone to hurricanes, blizzards, and other extreme conditions, up from 49% in 2019. In the same survey, 61% of women and 52% of men said they were less likely to choose certain destinations because of bad weather. The age-group figures were 66% for Boomers, 58% for Gen X, 48% for Millennials, and 47% for Gen Z.
The 26% share citing bad weather or natural disasters as a purchase reason appeared in Aon’s travel-insurance survey as well. Together, the figures show a connection between disruption experience, destination concern, and insurance interest, but they do not prove that one caused another.
Medical transport can create a much larger potential expense than an ordinary delay. Aon’s medical-benefits article says average air ambulance bills can exceed $40,000. That is a reported average-bill threshold from Aon’s article, not a guarantee of what any particular traveler will pay or what a policy will cover.
Traveler demographics and international trips
In Aon’s 2024 U.S. survey, 53% of men and 47% of women said they had purchased travel insurance. Eighteen percent of men bought coverage for every trip, compared with 13% of women. By generation, 60% of Gen Z, 54% of Millennials, 45% of Gen X, and 43% of Boomers said they had bought travel protection.
Aon’s 2018 international-leisure survey found that 68% of Americans had traveled internationally for leisure, and nearly half of those Americans had done so in the previous five years. Europe had been visited by 39% for leisure, while 32% had visited Canada. Among international leisure travelers, 70% said general sightseeing was their most common pastime, and 43% cited guided, walking, or bike tours as a common pastime.
In that 2018 survey, 11% of international leisure travelers had experienced a trip cancellation. Trip cancellation was the top reason for a travel-insurance claim in Aon’s 2018 claim data, at 73%. Forty-seven percent of international leisure travelers bought travel insurance for all or some of their trips, including 25% who bought it for every international trip. These figures are from 2018 and should not be read as current purchase behavior.
Policy limits and purchase timing
Allianz says more than 70 million American travelers trust its travel insurance each year and that 84% of customers give it a 5-star Trustpilot rating. These are Allianz-stated company and customer-rating figures, not an industry-wide market share or independent satisfaction estimate.
Allianz’s OneTrip Basic includes up to $10,000 in trip cancellation/interruption coverage and up to $10,000 in emergency medical benefits. Its Cancel Anytime upgrade reimburses 80% of prepaid, non-refundable trip costs, while comparable CFAR plans typically reimburse 50% to 75%. Allianz says the maximum trip-cost reimbursement for Cancel Anytime is $16,000. The upgrade must be purchased within 14 days of the first trip deposit and no later than 30 days before departure.
For covered flight delays, Allianz says OneTrip Prime and OneTrip Premier provide an automatic $100 per insured person, per day payment. On a monitored flight, Allianz may issue a rapid payment by debit card or direct deposit. Allianz also says a trip-delay claim can reimburse meals, accommodations, and lost prepaid expenses following a covered delay. Every Allianz travel-insurance plan offers 24-hour assistance, according to Allianz’s travel pages.
Allianz’s OneTrip Rental Car Protector provides primary coverage up to $50,000 for covered collision, loss, and damage, according to Allianz’s 2025 holiday travel survey page. Coverage limits, exclusions, eligibility, and timing conditions matter as much as the headline dollar amount.
Allianz’s 2025 Holiday Travel Survey found that 84% of winter travelers were very confident they would travel and another 9% were somewhat confident. Sixty-seven percent planned to visit family and friends, while 20% planned cultural experiences and 20% planned holiday traditions; about 9% planned a winter activity such as skiing or snowboarding.
Booking timing varied: 42% booked 1–3 months ahead, 30% booked 4–6 months ahead, 14% booked within the past month, and 11% booked 7–12 months ahead. About 25% typically spent $1,000 or less on a winter vacation, 19% spent $1,000–$2,000, and 5% spent $10,000 or more.
Proximity to family or friends mattered most when choosing a winter destination for 44%, followed by travel cost at 24% and weather at 19%. Flying was the primary planned transportation mode for 82%; 4% planned to take the train and 6% planned to drive. Just over half were somewhat concerned about winter weather or delays, 27% were not very concerned, and 16% were very concerned.