Health insurance void if travelling through Belgium to Germany

[tringy]

Just spoke with CAMC regarding my cover with them and found out that if I travel to Germany via Belgium the policy will be nul and void as its on the uk red list at the moment. I was planning to go to Germany travelling nonstop through Belgium as on the government’s web site they say that you don’t have to quarantine afterwards if you do not stop for any reason just drive straight through. But if I did so I would have no cover in Germany or anywhere else after that . This would also apply to France if it was to go on the red list. So I cannot get to the part of Germany I was thinking of going without a very long detour . This would mean no health cover so I will not take the risk. Just thought this may be of interest to someone planning a trip in that direction.Regards Tringy

[arthur49]

Anyone wishing to travel overseas must check the Foreign & Commonwealth OfficeTravel Advice for the countries to be visited before they start the crossing.

 

If you are advised there that you should not travel unless its essential (and a holiday is not an essential) then your travel insurance will more than likely be invalid and in the event of injury or illness, you're on your own.

 

Flights are still taking off daily from the UK to the likes of Spain and I wonder if they realise that more than likely they have no insurance. I suspect they do know but don't give a toss ..............

 

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice

[webpax]

tringy - 2020-08-12 2:05 PM

 

Just spoke with CAMC regarding my cover with them and found out that if I travel to Germany via Belgium the policy will be nul and void as its on the uk red list at the moment. I was planning to go to Germany travelling nonstop through Belgium as on the government’s web site they say that you don’t have to quarantine afterwards if you do not stop for any reason just drive straight through. But if I did so I would have no cover in Germany or anywhere else after that . This would also apply to France if it was to go on the red list. So I cannot get to the part of Germany I was thinking of going without a very long detour . This would mean no health cover so I will not take the risk. Just thought this may be of interest to someone planning a trip in that direction.Regards Tringy

If you have an EHIC card you will be entitled to the same medical treatment as German nationals in Germany.

[arthur49]

webpax - 2020-08-12 8:17 PM

 

If you have an EHIC card you will be entitled to the same medical treatment as German nationals in Germany.

 

True. But no substitute for travel insurance.

 

For example EHIC does not cover repatriation to UK should you be dead! Or in a persistent vegetative state, relying on machinery and experts to keep you breathing.

[slowdriver]

arthur49 - 2020-08-12 8:38 PM

 

webpax - 2020-08-12 8:17 PM

 

If you have an EHIC card you will be entitled to the same medical treatment as German nationals in Germany.

 

True. But no substitute for travel insurance.

 

For example EHIC does not cover repatriation to UK should you be dead! Or in a persistent vegetative state, relying on machinery and experts to keep you breathing.

 

Surely there must be better examples of the importance of Travel insurance than the quality of my repatriation after my death, or who's paying for the machines in the event of me being in a persistent vegetative state?

 

Getting some money back for a changed booking or the theft of my wallet come to mind. Both of which I am prepared to cover should I have no travel insurance. If my van cover was cancelled - that would be a different matter.

 

[Deneb]

slowdriver - 2020-08-15 8:23 PM

 

If my van cover was cancelled - that would be a different matter.

 

When you enter into an insurance contract, you assume a duty of care to protect the asset and minimise any losses or obvious risk by acting reasonably at all times. I believe it was Aviva who issue the policies sold by Comfort, who recently stated that if you travel against FCO advice you could be regarded as not acting reasonably in that regard, and whilst they cannot avoid your liability to third parties, they could refuse to cover personal losses such as the loss of or damage to your own vehicle, or apply a reduction to the amount of such a claim that they were prepared to meet.

[Brian Kirby]

As Deneb says, insurances are a contractual matter so, as each insurer sets their own terms, if you really want to know how your insurer would interpret your cover were you to ignore the FCO advice, you'd need to ask your insurer very carefully what would, and would not, be covered. You'd be wise to do that in writing and, if the cover remained partially operative, to keep a copy of their reply on you while away.

 

It seems a little unreasonable, for example, to say that even if merely transiting affected countries non-stop in accordance with the government rules, your insurances would then remain voided once into a country where there is no present quarantine requirement.

 

It also seems unreasonable to say that all cover is then void, rather than that cover related specifically to Covid and its consequences is void. After all, what bearing has Covid on a claim for a broken leg? If the insurance covers more risks than merely health matters, why should you lose cover against having your pocket picked on the pretext of Covid? A contract is a two-way street.

 

So, you need to ask, in writing (not via a call centre), quoting your insurance contract number, explaining exactly what you intend doing and for how long, and asking exactly what would, and would not, be impacted.

 

If their answer is that the whole policy would be void, tell them that you regard that as unreasonable cancellation of the policy on their part and you want the premium repaid pro rata. You never know, someone a little more thoughtful and/or senior might then give you a more sensible answer! :-)

[Deneb]

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-16 8:53 AM

 

It also seems unreasonable to say that all cover is then void, rather than that cover related specifically to Covid and its consequences is void. After all, what bearing has Covid on a claim for a broken leg? If the insurance covers more risks than merely health matters, why should you lose cover against having your pocket picked on the pretext of Covid? A contract is a two-way street.

 

 

Whilst that sounds reasonable, I think it may also depend on what your insurer may have imparted to you in advance.

 

For instance my travel insurance (which covers a lot more than simply medical expenses BTW) which is issued on a group policy basis through my ex-employer, and as it happens is also from Aviva, does currently cover Covid related illness. Aviva have explicity written to policyholders confirming this, whilst also notifying that as Covid is now a known event, the cover will change on the next policy renewal. However, the same letter also states that if travelling to any country against FCO advice (as distinct from already being in that country when the advice is issued, where cover will continue for as long as is reasonably practical to make arrangements to leave) there will be no cover for any aspect of the policy, be that medical expenses or anything else.

 

Unconnected to Covid or FCO guidance, I also have a personal letter from the underwrites in response to a previous query that I made concerning application of cover to motorhome travel. Their response was that all aspects of the policy, including cancellation cover for pre-booked ferry travel and campsite fees, applies to any trip in the UK or abroad which involves an overnight stay of one or more nights, with the single exception that there is no medical expenses cover within the UK itself.

[arthur49]

slowdriver - 2020-08-15 8:23 PM

 

 

Surely there must be better examples of the importance of Travel insurance than the quality of my repatriation after my death, or who's paying for the machines in the event of me being in a persistent vegetative state?

 

Getting some money back for a changed booking or the theft of my wallet come to mind. Both of which I am prepared to cover should I have no travel insurance. If my van cover was cancelled - that would be a different matter.

 

But these are piffling amounts in comparison to an air ambulance ................. even the value of most mohos pales into insignificance. In any event I was comparing the cover under EHIC and travel insurance medical cover

[Brian Kirby]

Deneb - 2020-08-16 9:19 AM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-16 8:53 AM

It also seems unreasonable to say that all cover is then void, rather than that cover related specifically to Covid and its consequences is void. After all, what bearing has Covid on a claim for a broken leg? If the insurance covers more risks than merely health matters, why should you lose cover against having your pocket picked on the pretext of Covid? A contract is a two-way street.

Whilst that sounds reasonable, I think it may also depend on what your insurer may have imparted to you in advance.

For instance my travel insurance (which covers a lot more than simply medical expenses BTW) which is issued on a group policy basis through my ex-employer, and as it happens is also from Aviva, does currently cover Covid related illness. Aviva have explicity written to policyholders confirming this, whilst also notifying that as Covid is now a known event, the cover will change on the next policy renewal. However, the same letter also states that if travelling to any country against FCO advice (as distinct from already being in that country when the advice is issued, where cover will continue for as long as is reasonably practical to make arrangements to leave) there will be no cover for any aspect of the policy, be that medical expenses or anything else.

Unconnected to Covid or FCO guidance, I also have a personal letter from the underwrites in response to a previous query that I made concerning application of cover to motorhome travel. Their response was that all aspects of the policy, including cancellation cover for pre-booked ferry travel and campsite fees, applies to any trip in the UK or abroad which involves an overnight stay of one or more nights, with the single exception that there is no medical expenses cover within the UK itself.

Which seems to me to suggest that a clarification is necessary to discover whether or not the later advice supersedes what is stated in the earlier letter. My assumption is that it would.

[Deneb]

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-16 9:54 AM

Which seems to me to suggest that a clarification is necessary to discover whether or not the later advice supersedes what is stated in the earlier letter. My assumption is that it would.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at Brian.

 

The underwriters' letter was in response to a query I raised a few years ago, asking how they would apply cover to motorhome trips, where quite often we do not book accommodation in advance for instance, as the wording of the policy seems to infer trips via air and sea to pre-arranged accommodation, or journeys to pre-booked accommodation within the UK. It clarified for me that, whilst refunds for cancellation would obviously only apply to pre-booked transport fares and accommodation, the policy as a whole including all other aspects of its cover was suitable for motorhome touring and covered any journeys involving at least a single overnight stay irrespective of whether a camp site or other accommodation had been booked in advance, if at all.

 

Obviously the more recent letter has been issued in response to Covid and fluctuating FCO advice, and overrides anything in the policy itself that could be considered contradictory, as well as the information imparted in the letter to me. But it does not currently change the cover in the policy or the confirmation in letter I received in any circumstances other than if intentionally travelling to a destination in contravention of FCO guidance that had been issued prior to the commencement of that particular journey.

 

Aviva have given advance notice that cover for Covid related claims will be changed at the next policy renewal. Anyone who feels that the policy will no longer meet their needs from that time is at liberty to take their business elsewhere on renewal if they can find an insurer offering the cover they require. As the policy is renewed every three years, there is some time to go yet before that change will become effective.

[flicka]

It looks likely that unless you are intending to tour in northern Europe, Continental Europe is not going to be feasible this year.

The major ferry routes to France, Belgium, Netherlands & Spain are all on the FO no go countries now.

It goes beg the question, how insurers will treat anyone currently in these countries who will need to travel back at some point ?

[slowdriver]

flicka - 2020-08-16 10:15 PM

 

It looks likely that unless you are intending to tour in northern Europe, Continental Europe is not going to be feasible this year.

The major ferry routes to France, Belgium, Netherlands & Spain are all on the FO no go countries now.

It goes beg the question, how insurers will treat anyone currently in these countries who will need to travel back at some point ?

 

I am not entirely sure that it's not feasible. The Paris UK Embassy Facebook page is clear that you can transit through "no go countries' such as France, en route to say Germany and then onto say Austria and Italy, as long as you don't stop during the transit.(apart from refuelling stops, walking the dog, and grabbing a coffee, as long as none of those activities involve "mixing" with people). As long as you fulfil that requirement you do not need to self-quarantine on the return. However the situation with insurance, as mentioned by others, is less clear and it looks like you'd need to forgo the benefits of travel insurance. I will seeking some clarification tomorrow from my insurance company. The Paris Embassy clarifications are covered here:

 

https://www.facebook.com/notes/british-embassy-paris/covid-19-update-transit-stops/3606924719365897/

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Deneb - 2020-08-16 10:15 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-16 9:54 AM

Which seems to me to suggest that a clarification is necessary to discover whether or not the later advice supersedes what is stated in the earlier letter. My assumption is that it would.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at Brian.

 

The underwriters' letter was in response to a query I raised a few years ago, asking how they would apply cover to motorhome trips, where quite often we do not book accommodation in advance for instance, as the wording of the policy seems to infer trips via air and sea to pre-arranged accommodation, or journeys to pre-booked accommodation within the UK. It clarified for me that, whilst refunds for cancellation would obviously only apply to pre-booked transport fares and accommodation, the policy as a whole including all other aspects of its cover was suitable for motorhome touring and covered any journeys involving at least a single overnight stay irrespective of whether a camp site or other accommodation had been booked in advance, if at all.

 

Obviously the more recent letter has been issued in response to Covid and fluctuating FCO advice, and overrides anything in the policy itself that could be considered contradictory, as well as the information imparted in the letter to me. But it does not currently change the cover in the policy or the confirmation in letter I received in any circumstances other than if intentionally travelling to a destination in contravention of FCO guidance that had been issued prior to the commencement of that particular journey.

 

Aviva have given advance notice that cover for Covid related claims will be changed at the next policy renewal. Anyone who feels that the policy will no longer meet their needs from that time is at liberty to take their business elsewhere on renewal if they can find an insurer offering the cover they require. As the policy is renewed every three years, there is some time to go yet before that change will become effective.

Thanks Deneb. Your clarification covers most of what I had in mind, with the exception of the circumstances given in tringy's OP. That is to say, where one transits a "quarantined" country without stopping in, stopping and mixing with others in, or taking in passengers from, any of those countries.

 

In Tringy's OP the problem was that, apparently, the CAMC would void the entire policy if tringy accessed Germany (not quarantined) by transiting northern France, Belgium, and Holland (all "quarantined), despite the quarantine rules saying that non-stop transits do not attract the quarantine requirement. CAMC apparently went on to say that the voiding would take immediate effect, so that no cover would then be provided in non-quarantined Germany.

 

That is what struck me as unreasonable, and on the basis of what your insurer appears to have said to you, it still seems to me a bit of an open question with your policy.

 

All the insurers make their own rules, and interpret them as they see fit, so as this is an open forum - read by many more than contribute - I wanted to highlight the need for everyone intending to travel abroad to check in detail how their individual insurer might interpret the present rules regarding transit of quarantined countries.

 

BTW, it wasn't/isn't my intention to call into question what your insurer has helpfully told you.

[Deneb]

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-17 10:41 AM

 

Thanks Deneb. Your clarification covers most of what I had in mind, with the exception of the circumstances given in tringy's OP. That is to say, where one transits a "quarantined" country without stopping in, stopping and mixing with others in, or taking in passengers from, any of those countries.

 

All the insurers make their own rules, and interpret them as they see fit, so as this is an open forum - read by many more than contribute - I wanted to highlight the need for everyone intending to travel abroad to check in detail how their individual insurer might interpret the present rules regarding transit of quarantined countries.

 

No problem Brian, I just couldn't quite see what you were getting at, although I understand now.

 

If it helps, from my experience in liaising with insurers on a professional basis, most will use any clause that they can within the contract to avoid or minimise their liability when it comes to settling a claim, or even "try it on" with the policyholder in the hope that the majority will simply accept the offer that they are given. They are businesses, and they are always looking to minimise their losses rather than act in the best interests of their policyholders. So I always tend to interpret any policy wording in the worst possible light, hence the original query I made to my travel insurer regarding cover for "ad-hoc" motorhome touring.

 

That may sound somewhat cynical, but I speak from (thankfully not personal) experience.

 

One motorhome specific example that comes to mind:

 

About 12 years ago I recovered a stolen motorhome that had been cloned onto a different identity. The original owner was contacted and asked to attend the premises where we had recovered the vehicle, to view it and assist in identifying any further unique features that would confirm or add weight to its original identity, and provide a witness statement covering the original loss and any identification that he could make.

 

On viewing the van, he asked if he could buy it back. I told him that he would need to ask that question of his insurer direct, but that I would also inform them of his request in the meantime.

 

As his claim had been settled several years previously, the insurer intimated to me that they were not willing to entertain the request, and I got the feeling that it was largely because it would involve them in more administrative work than would otherwise be necessary to arrange a direct disposal through their normal salvage processes.

 

We released the vehicle to the insurance company after completing our examinations, but despite several reminders both from myself and the recovery agents who were storing it, for reasons known only to the insurer they failed to arrange for its collection for nearly 18 months.

 

I then received a telephone call from the delighted "owner" who told me that he had been contacted by the insurer and that they had offered to sell the motorhome back to him for somewhat less than he had originally been paid following his claim.

 

What they had neglected to tell him, and what was undoubtedly the reason for their change of heart, was that over the intervening months in which they had neglected to recover the vehicle from our storage agent, it had accumulated a bill of several thousands of pounds in storage charges, which would have to be settled by whoever wished to remove it!

 

I believe the previous owner did manage to buy it back in the end, after coming to some arrangement with the recovery operator over the charges, but it does illustrate how the insurance industry sometimes works!

 

 

 

 

[slowdriver]

My travel insurance is via a Nationwide FlexPlus account. The advice provided on their FAQ web-pages has been updated and provides a useful clarification. As follows:

 

1. There is no FCO advice in place for my destination. But to get there I am travelling through another country where the FCO advice is against "all but essential travel"; does my policy still cover me?

 

As long as you are not travelling against doctor’s advice and aren’t travelling to an area when the FCO has advised against “all travel”, then you’ll be insured to travel.

 

2. There is no FCO advice in place for my destination. But to get there I am travelling through another country where the FCO advice is against "all but essential travel"; am I covered for medical expenses?

 

As long as you are not travelling against doctor’s advice and aren’t travelling to an area when the FCO has advised against ‘all travel’, then you’ll be covered for emergency medical and reasonable additional travel expenses that you may incur as a result of becoming ill.

If the FCO advice changes while you’re on your trip, you’ll still be covered if you need to claim for medical expenses.

 

Verbally they confirmed that all other, non-medical, aspects of the policy, loss or theft etc, remain in place.

 

So it seems that as far as Travel Insurance provided by Nationwide, who use Liverpool and Victoria I think, is concerned, travel anywhere in Europe is possible, as long as you only intend to transit through countries on the "essential-travel-only list" and not stay there. And separately, as long as you follow the UK government advice on how you manage re-fuelling and other aspects of rest-stops en route, then you don't need to quarantine on your return. Of course there are the country specific restrictions to be considered, such as Republic of Ireland's requirement that all visitors (with a few vey specific exceptions that do not include visitors from the USA, UK, France, Italy, France etc) must quarantine for 14 days on arrival (and campsites can't be used for quarntining. So that is an additional level of checking that will be required.