Travel insurance issues
Discussion
Friends of ours took out an annual policy in January declaring pre-existing conditions. Due to go away next week but one of them contracted shingles 2 weeks ago! They rang the insurer to advise them and was immediately slapped with an additional premium. Is this correct as this condition occurred a long time after the policy was taken out?
Secondly, their GP now has doubts about the shingles diagnosis so has requested further investigation. The insurer has been called again and has told them that until a diagnosis has been made they will not be covered at all if they go away. Is this true? Diagnosis could takes weeks or even months. I should add that her GP has not advised her that she shouldn't go away.
Thoughts?
Secondly, their GP now has doubts about the shingles diagnosis so has requested further investigation. The insurer has been called again and has told them that until a diagnosis has been made they will not be covered at all if they go away. Is this true? Diagnosis could takes weeks or even months. I should add that her GP has not advised her that she shouldn't go away.
Thoughts?
The first part of your question I would say is fairly normal as their Statement of Health has altered and the Insurer has still agreed to cover them for any adverse impact caused from Shingles should they still travel.
The second question is more interesting - is the Insurer saying no cover at all for anything or just any issues from whatever the diagnosis at some point turns up ?
The second question is more interesting - is the Insurer saying no cover at all for anything or just any issues from whatever the diagnosis at some point turns up ?
Agree, the first part is totally normal for annual travel insurance - it's a condition of the policy that you have to notify the insurer of any new conditions or issues.
As to the second question, they're asking the insurer to cover them for a yet to be diagnosed condition - it's impossible for them to assess the risk until there's a diagnosis.
As to the second question, they're asking the insurer to cover them for a yet to be diagnosed condition - it's impossible for them to assess the risk until there's a diagnosis.
But maybe naively I would have thought that as they purchased an annual policy it would have been their health at that time.
I understand that the insurance company have to assess the risk which they can't until there is a diagnosis but as I said this could take a long time and it seems really unfair to not cover the person in the interim.
I think what has confused me more is I also have an annual travel insurance but this says that I don't need to tell them if my health changes during the year (as long as I'm not advised not to travel). However, the big difference is that my policy was taken out as part of a company benefit and therefore under a group policy.
I understand that the insurance company have to assess the risk which they can't until there is a diagnosis but as I said this could take a long time and it seems really unfair to not cover the person in the interim.
I think what has confused me more is I also have an annual travel insurance but this says that I don't need to tell them if my health changes during the year (as long as I'm not advised not to travel). However, the big difference is that my policy was taken out as part of a company benefit and therefore under a group policy.
Pilchard said:
I guess I am trying to equate this with, say, a life insurance policy where you don't tell the insurer about any changes in health since the policy was taken out. Although on the flip side I guess you could liken it to car insurance where you tell the insurer if you change cars!
Just checked my own annual policy, they're pretty clear about it:Pilchard said:
And yes, the insurer has told them that will not be covered at all for any condition not just the undiagnosed one
That’s the bit which seems slightly wrong. At the very least I would expect an exclusion for any condition that arises from the undiagnosed condition yes but if something occurs that investigations say has then nothing whatsoever to do with it then no.
To say no cover in that way is a virtual exclusion on cover.
At the very least I think clarity should be obtained from the Insurer.
alscar said:
Pilchard said:
And yes, the insurer has told them that will not be covered at all for any condition not just the undiagnosed one
That’s the bit which seems slightly wrong. At the very least I would expect an exclusion for any condition that arises from the undiagnosed condition yes but if something occurs that investigations say has then nothing whatsoever to do with it then no.
To say no cover in that way is a virtual exclusion on cover.
At the very least I think clarity should be obtained from the Insurer.
Until the doctors can say what's going on, you can't tell the isurance company, so they can't judge the risk, and they can't tell you what you would/wouldn't be covered for\how much extra for that cover.
Plus of course if you need to claim for something that could__ be related the insurance company will have a bus load of doctors in their pay to say it __was related, so not covered.
//j17 said:
alscar said:
Pilchard said:
And yes, the insurer has told them that will not be covered at all for any condition not just the undiagnosed one
That’s the bit which seems slightly wrong. At the very least I would expect an exclusion for any condition that arises from the undiagnosed condition yes but if something occurs that investigations say has then nothing whatsoever to do with it then no.
To say no cover in that way is a virtual exclusion on cover.
At the very least I think clarity should be obtained from the Insurer.
Until the doctors can say what's going on, you can't tell the isurance company, so they can't judge the risk, and they can't tell you what you would/wouldn't be covered for\how much extra for that cover.
Plus of course if you need to claim for something that could__ be related the insurance company will have a bus load of doctors in their pay to say it __was related, so not covered.
oilslick said:
alscar said:
Understood but in which case they are as good as saying they need to therefore cancel the policy ?
No, they're saying that they need a diagnosis so they can amend the policy appropriately.If the diagnosis is months away then leaving the policy “ suspended “ doesn’t sound very fair.
Desiderata said:
Sorry if I don't quite get this.
It's an annual policy, already up and running and they have developed a condition which they should be insured against under the policy. Why wouldn't they be covered for something that they are paying an insurance premium for?
This is an annual TRAVEL insurance policy, not HEALTH insurance policy. As such it's explicitly insuring you against unexpected costs/issues while travelling. So go skiing and break your leg and you're covered for the medical costs of getting it fixed, at least enough to get you home. Break your leg 2 days before your holiday, decide to just suffer through the pain for 2 days/getting to the airport/flying to Spain/getting to your hotel and then go to the hospital and your medical costs aren't covered.It's an annual policy, already up and running and they have developed a condition which they should be insured against under the policy. Why wouldn't they be covered for something that they are paying an insurance premium for?
In this case if the policy holder has developed a new medical condition before they travel the policy won't cover them for that condition/anything developing out of that condition because it's happened before they travel. Depending on the nature/cover level of the policy likely wil cover the cost of cancelling any already booked the policy holder has to cancel due to their new medical condition however as that (the booking of the trip) occured before the condition had been identified.
Gassing Station | Holidays & Travel | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff