Have name changed, as this is identifiable. I tried to change details, but it all got too far from the original scenario to be useful. Be warned - it's long, but don't want to drip feed down the line.
Here's the situation...
A, B and C have been friends for 30 years (since Uni). They don't see each other that much any more (living several hours from each other), but they're regularly in contact, and when they meet up it's like they've never been apart. All have quite different lives/lifestyles, but all are in good jobs, financially secure, and don't need to 'worry' about money.
A and B are 50 soon (C was 50 in lockdown), so they decided to go away for the weekend to celebrate, and a trip on Eurostar was booked.
In the night, the night before they were travelling, A's husband had a bad accident and broke several bones. A spent the night with him in A&E, then he had to be admitted overnight. He was due to be released on the next morning (the day of travel), but was completely immobile and needed care at home (plus they have a young son). This meant A couldn't travel.
B&C faced a dilemma - to go anyway, or to cancel. Travel and first night's hotel were non-refundable. They felt that going was definitely not the right thing to do (seeing as celebrating A's birthday was a big part of the reason for going). But both called their travel insurance providers to see what they said.
Both travel insurance companies agreed that yes, their policy should cover them for this scenario (both B&C were very clear about the exact circumstances, and the reason that A couldn't travel), but that until a claim was submitted it was impossible to say 100%. On the strength of both insurance cos giving off the right vibes, B&C did the 'right thing' and the trip was cancelled.
All 3 then submitted insurance claims.
A's paid out straight away - no quibble from her insurer that she couldn't travel as her husband had the accident.
B's claim was initially rejected, B appealed, citing the call from the day of travel, but the underwriter still rejected it.
C's claim was initially rejected. C appealed, citing the call she'd made that morning. Her insurer agreed that she was given false information on the call, and therefore paid out.
B's insurer are not being as 'nice' as C's. They are saying that on the call they said it couldn't be guaranteed, and because B is not related to the person who had the accident, she isn't covered. They are not disputing the fact that A couldn't travel and therefore there are reasonable grounds for cancelling the trip.
Herein lies the dilemma. A and C are not out of pocket (apart from their excess), but B has lost all the money from the trip. All 3 have the same policy wording on their documents (so they don't have different insurance), but the different insurers have handled it differently.
Should A&C offer to share some of their refund with B? Clearly they don't have to - all 3 are independent of each other, and are financially responsible for their own costs of the trip. But would it be the nice thing to do to split the loss 3 ways and share the recovered funds 3 ways?