Consumer complaint received 2026-05-05 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Add-on products and services
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding the handling of my Chase Sapphire Reserve XXXX XXXX claim ( Claim # XXXX ), administered through Chase XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I believe the benefit language is materially ambiguous and misleading to consumers, and the claim handling process has been inconsistent, unprofessional, and potentially deceptive. Background of the Claim During an international trip booked using my Chase Sapphire Reserve card, my baggage was lost. My documented losses exceeded {$10000.00}. The airline, XXXX, reimbursed me only {$2000.00}. Under the Chase Sapphire Reserve XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the policy states : > The Lost Luggage benefit provides reimbursement for the difference between the actual cash value ( replacement cost less depreciation ) and any reimbursement provided by the Common Carrier The policy further states : > Your Checked and Carry-on Baggage each have a maximum benefit up to XXXX XXXX ( {$3000.00} ) dollars per Covered Person per Trip. Additionally, the policy states : > This benefit is payable on an excess basis over and above any amount due from any other valid or collectible insurance or any other form of reimbursement payable by those responsible for the loss. As an ordinary consumer reading this language, I reasonably understood the benefit to mean : XXXX. The airline reimbursement is applied first ; XXXX. Chase then reimburses the remaining uncompensated loss ; XXXX. Chase provides up to {$3000.00} in excess coverage for the remaining loss. Since my uncompensated loss after XXXX payment still exceeded {$7900.00}, I reasonably believed I qualified for the full {$3000.00} benefit. However, ChaseXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the {$3000.00} benefit itself by the airline reimbursement and issued only approximately {$910.00}. Misleading and Ambiguous Benefit Language The benefit guide never clearly states that reimbursements from the airline reduce the stated {$3000.00} benefit limit itself. The policy does NOT state : - that the total combined recovery from all sources is capped at {$3000.00} ; - that airline reimbursements erode the policy limit ; - or that the {$3000.00} is an aggregate combined maximum including carrier payments. Instead, the policy repeatedly uses terms such as : - difference - excess basis- over and above which strongly imply to a reasonable consumer that Chase provides additional coverage after the carrier reimbursement is exhausted. The ambiguity is so significant that even Chase XXXX XXXX themselves could not consistently explain the coverage. Conflicting and Incorrect Information from Chase XXXX XXXX When I first contacted Chase XXXX regarding this claim, the XXXX informed me that based on my losses exceeding {$10000.00}, I would qualify for the full {$3000.00} benefit after the airline reimbursement. Relying on this representation, I proceeded with the claim process. Later, after receiving only approximately {$910.00}, I contacted Chase XXXX again to question the calculation. During this conversation, a XXXX named XXXX reviewed the policy language regarding : - difference - and excess basis and specifically told me that my interpretation appeared reasonable and that the claim should undergo a Second Review. XXXX indicated that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the policy language and the actual payout determination. Following his guidance, I formally requested a XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year>. Improper and Unprofessional Handling of the Second Review After submitting the Second Review request on XX/XX/XXXX, I called again to confirm the request had been properly submitted. I was told the review was in process and that I should expect a decision within XXXX business days. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called again to check on the status because I had still received no update. During that call, I was told that the review was still pending and that I needed to continue waiting because the XXXX-business-day period had not yet elapsed. Today, when I called again for another update, I was suddenly informed by a different representative that the Second Review had actually already been completed and denied back on XX/XX/XXXX the very same day it was supposedly submitted. This means : - I was never informed of the denial ; - I received no written notice, email, or letter ; - multiple representatives subsequently spoke with me as though the review was still pending ; - and I was repeatedly instructed to continue waiting for a decision that had apparently already been made. This handling was highly confusing, contradictory, and unprofessional. As a consumer, I had no reliable way to understand the actual status of my claim because Chase Benefits representatives themselves appeared unable to access or communicate consistent information. Consumer Harm and Requested Review I believe consumers are being materially misled by : - ambiguous and unclear benefit language ; - inconsistent explanations from Chase XXXX XXXX ; - and representations that create the reasonable expectation of additional excess coverage up to {$3000.00}. If Chase/XXXX XXXX intends for airline reimbursements to reduce the policy limit itself, the benefit guide should clearly and explicitly disclose that limitation in plain language. Instead, the current wording creates the reasonable impression that the Chase benefit provides up to {$3000.00} of additional reimbursement after carrier compensation. I am requesting CFPB review of : XXXX. The potentially misleading wording of the Chase Sapphire Reserve Lost Luggage benefit guide ; XXXX. The inconsistent and contradictory representations made by Chase XXXX XXXX ; XXXX. The mishandling and lack of communication regarding my Second Review request ; XXXX. Whether consumers are being adequately informed about how this benefit is actually calculated in practice. I am also requesting that XXXXFederal Insurance provide a clear written explanation identifying the exact policy language they rely upon to conclude that carrier reimbursements reduce the stated {$3000.00} maximum benefit itself. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief