Travel Insurance is a serious business

[StuartO]

I was reading an article in the paper today (The Times, 8th Feb, page 20, “Insurers selling useless cover”) explaining how insurers are manipulating travel and car policies (for example by applying bigger excesses and limitations on claims) to reduce claim costs and increase profit, so that the unwary policyholder has to be even more careful to ensure they have cover which is both adequate and reliable.  I used to rely on getting a policy from a trustworthy source, in my case LV insurance which is amutual (i.e. no profit going to shareholders) but they seem to be getting more hard-nosed too so I fear this is no longer a reliable approach.

I recently changed travel cover to a policy provided with a Nationwide bank account and nearly got caught out because I failed to read the policy document.  This policy differs in its approach to covering pre-existing medical conditions from my previous policy.  Firstly the initial screening for pre-existing conditions seemed simpler (and fairer) because their questions ar fewer and very specific; they are concerned only with relatively recent and current conditions, rather than asking you to remember things which “ever” happened, which you might easily forget. But there is a catch in that their Policy Document requires you to contact them if certain categories of conditions crop up after the policy starts but before you travel, when they have the option to re-screen you and charge extra if you want continuing cover for those conditions.  You are still covered for cancellation due to those conditions (if the criteria for cancellation payouts are met) but you will no longer be covered for the new conditions unless you pay the extra they then demand.

For example I developed a painful knee a few weeks before we are due to go away so even though the pain went away after four days of ibuprofen, because my GP had diagnosed “osteoarthritis” the requirement to tell the insurer arose - because they want to know about anything to do with bones orjoints.  Even though the symptoms were short lived, I must have fallen into a higher category of risk of some sort and they wanted an extra £32 odd to continue cover.

I could have opted to do without cover for osteoarthritis but I don’t like to take uninsured risks when travelling (in this case to the USA) so I paid up.  As it happens the total cost of travel insurance under this Nationwide world-wide annual policy is still less than half of what LV were going to charge for either upgrading of my European policy or a separate single trip policy .

But Nationwide’s requirement to declare, prior to departure, any new or newly active condition concerned with:

• any heartcondition, a circulatory condition (problems with blood flow, including highblood pressure) or a breathing condition (including asthma);

• any typeof cancer;

• any joint or bone condition;

• any gastrointestinal (stomach) condition; or

• diabetes.

So if you get an episode of diarrhoea (or constipation) you need to tell them, although if that’s all it was they aren’t likely to be worried. However you could easily, as an ageing motorhomer, find yourself facing a Catch 22 situation of suddenly being asked to pay big money for continuing cover because you’ve had a heart scare (or even being refused continuing travel cover for heart conditions full stop) if you still want to travel and yet not qualifying for cancellation cover because it wasn’t bad enough to be compelling. For example if I have a TIA (a minor stroke) before departure and my GP says it’s OK to travel because it was minor and unconfirmed, and doesn’t necessarily mean you will get a stroke next week, the insurer might take it far more seriously and to charge a big increase in premium (or refuse cover) because a TIA does imply an increased risk of a stroke and other problems.

I suppose the loss of a holiday (without recovery of cancellation costs) isn’t the end of the world compared with suffering a major health problem which isn’t covered while you are abroad, especially in the USA, but you would still feel a bit miffed because you were suffering real misfortune but being denied the cancellation claim.  But it’s reliable insurance cover for the potentially huge and life-changing expense of a suffering a serious health problem needing expensive care and medical repatriation is what you really need travel cover for and that’s why you should check that the insurer doesn’t limit cover to a potentially inadequate amount.  Most policies these days cover this eventuality up to £5 million or even £10 million, so that should be more than enough.

Having said that those scenarios are extremely rare: last year the average travel claim medical pay out was £2,268 and the biggest was only £148,341, so cover for £10million is something they can offer (and sounds wonderful) without serious risk of having to pay it out.  And these low incidences and averages suggest that insurers shouldn’t need to be too hard-nosed about excluding pre-existing medical conditions which occur after policy inception but before departure, by which time they are supposed to have accepted the risks for the duration of the policy.  If you do suffer a serious condition prior to travelling, your doctor is going to advise against travel anyway. 

Insurers are using these limiting tactics predominantly as part of a cost-saving strategy for smaller claims such as cancellations.  But if you need to make a claim when you are taken ill abroad these days the insurer will automatically look to see if they repudiate.  They will make supportive noises but they won’t pay any bills until they have checked your GP’s medical records to see if there is any basis upon which they can repudiate the claim and leave you high and dry.

There was a tragic case a couple of years ago in which a British tourist had a heart attack in Thailand and was in hospital. The insurer was initially supportive but when they checked his GP records he had failed to declare previous heart problems so they told him his hospital costs would not be met after all.  By this time he was recuperating out of hospital but then suffered another major complication (probably a stroke) and was re-admitted to intensive care.  The hospital bills were getting very big indeed and, even worse, he ended up in a vegetative state, capable of being kept alive and transport by specialist medical flight back to UK but unlikelyever to recover.  His family were not wealthy and faced having to all offer to sell their houses for a whip round to pay the escalating costs of their vegetative-state relative who hadn't been honest with his insurer. 

It’s situations like that that you really need your travel insurer to pick up the tab soyou must never risk failing to declare pre-existing health conditions at all.  If the insurer fails to ask the right questions maybe you don’t have to volunteer absolutely everything but an insuarnce contract is a contract "of ultimate good faith" so in law you have to declare all relevant risk factors whether they ask or not.  You should therefore try to do exactly that. It’s one thing going without travel insurance when you travel within the EU, where your EH1C Card should limit the cost to something more affordable but that won’t work for Morocco or Turkey or Norway or Iceland, let alone the USA and Thailand.

Another example of insurer cost cutting tactics: shortly after my knee pain flared upwe were due to fly to Madrid to stay with my son for a few days but we had to cancel; the knee was settling with treatment but the forecast was for snow and ice in Madrid so it made sense to cancel. All it cost us was the Ryanair flights because it turned out I could get a refund on the airport parking.  But when I checked the LV European travel policy, which was still running, they apply and excess of £50 per person to cancellation claims, so if we claimed for our Ryanair £110 fares, we would only get a maximum of £10back – and they would probably have wanted a medical certificate which would have me cost more than that anyway.  I can stand a cancellation loss of £110 but if your travel policy covers cancellation why shouldn’t you have your claim met without deducting sneaky “per person” extra deductions?

 

Why would LV, hitherto seen by me as an avuncular, mutual insurer, be applying an excess per person if it wasn’t just for costsaving reasons?  You can understand an excess of £50 per claim, to discourage frivolous claims, but why per person?  It just struck me as mean-minded. 

I encountered another disappointing response from LV about a year ago when the renewal premium for my motorhome insurance had suddenly doubled.    I had told them a few weeks earlier (being scrupulously honest) about a collision of door mirrors which had caused no damage to my MH and was unlikely to result in a claim, which it didn’t.  But they said “there is an open file in case of a claim, so we charge as if there is a claim”.  This was despite me having fully protected no claims bonus, which seems to be completely worthless these days – and they have thecheek to charge extra for NCB protection! I wrote to LV’s Chief Executive reminding him that I had a whole rangeof policies with them and if this was the way they behaved I would be shopping around at renewal time for all of them, not just this one; I got a phone call cancelling the spectacular jump in motorhome premium two days later.

Of course insurers must be tempted to treat all policy holders as potential crooks whenthey make a claim because some of us are crooks.  We must all know someone who has made exaggerated or completely spurious travel insurance claims, I certainly do.  Falsely claiming you have lost or broken a camera or a watch was an easy way of getting your premium back and perhaps a bit more and it’s only relatively recently that insurers have organised themselves to defeat tactics of this sort. In this computer age it is much easier to track individuals who have made suspicious or serial claims, even they claim from different companies.  They even tell you these days, in part of the recorded messages or cautions they read out, that if you make a claim which they find suspicious they will pass information to “agencies engaged in fraud detection and prevention”.  Quite right and proper too, why should the crooks rip insurers off and cause our premiums to rise?

You havea right these days to a copy of your GP’s medical records on you – including the right to have on-line access to it, so in the interests of getting my travel policy declaration correct I took advantage recently.  It’s a bit of a performance getting the password for on-line access but it's well worth doing.

My mediacl record turned out to have all sorts of errors in it.  I was listed as having several conditions which had only ever been investigative possibilities or the consequence of isolated blips in test results, yet they could easily have triggered alarm (and repudiation of a claim) by my travel insurer.  For example I was listed as having Left Ventricular Enlargement (a heart condition, in the broad sense) as a “significant current condition” when it had been merely a transitional incidental finding years and years ago which was subsequent ruled out.  I made anappointment with the GP to put this record straight and he was more than happy to do so.

My conclusion is that insurers, even the mutual who should be trustworthy and paternalistic, are these days behaving increasingly like cheap business crooks.  The implication is that claims for modest amounts are always likely to fail because of excesses and, above all, you need to be very careful to make sure you don’t fail to declare all and every pre-existing medical condition in order to deny them opportuity of opportunistic repudiation.  To which purpose you need to check your GP’s medical records and make sure that it’s accurate, rather than misleading ammunition which the insurer can latch on to inappropriately in order to repudiate a claim.

[Tracker]

We are contemplating the NFOP scheme for travel insurance as the requirements are easy for us to meet but as their rather inflexible insurance years is from 1st March only I'm not paying for cover we dont need for a period we don't need this year.

 

http://www.nfoptravelinsurance.org.uk/

 

I too have one car with LV car insurance and I will again look very closely prior to renewing, although it seemed OK last year.

 

That said I thought they were pricey so I got a £30 like for like lower price from the Meerkats which LV were happy to match via a phone call once I volunteered the quote reference.

 

You can sometimes get a better price simply by getting a fresh new business quote either online or by phone and switching but do be sure the cover is like for like.

 

With LV we get a discount on both as we also have our home insurance with them but we never found LV remotely competitive both price and cover wise when it came to motorhome insurance.

 

Whatever you need to insure it does pay to shop around and do some research beyond the headline premium.

[Basil]

We have our cover with NFOP and our renewal for 2018 has arrived, it should be noted that the premium displayed on the web site has increased for 2018 by £20 should anyone be contemplating.

We still believe this to be VFM and the mere fact there is no medical 'interrogation' makes it worthwhile, simply pay the premium and as long as you are fit to travel you are covered.

 

Bas

[StuartO]

NFOP sounds like a really good scheme, I think I'll look into joining.

 

I won't have to bare my naked breast or bind myself in eternal fraternal union with all existing Members, including Tracker, will I?  Not sure I'm quite ready for intimacy of that sort.  (lol)

 

(That is purely a joke Tracker, don't go getting the hump now will you?)

 

[arthur49]

"I could have opted to do without cover for osteoarthritis but I don’t like to take uninsured risks when travelling (in this case to the USA) so I paid up. "

 

Many years ago I used to handle travel insurance claims for a large insurer.

I would not go anywhere near North America or the Carribean without making absolutely sure I'd declared EVERYTHING medical. The reason is medical costs. I can't remember the figures now for a typical week in a US hospital but I recall it being many times greater than say Australia.

 

And the requirement to declare everything hoping I've not forgotten anything, is why I'm with NFOP.

[StuartO]

My son paid over $800 for a brief consultation and prescription at a hospital A&E Department.  (He then proved to be allergic to the prescription drug and had to stop taking it!)

[flyboyprowler]

Trying to find a suitable policy is a nightmare! I had bowel cancer which is thankfully clear now for 4 years, yet declaring that makes me uninsurable with meerkats, and a large premium hike on other companies that will cover me. NFOP, no problem, as said, provided the doctor says you are fit to travel so I will probably join up and take out a policy.

 

The only downside, we go away on the 24th on our travels and the NFOP policy runs yearly from March 1st, and you have to be in the UK to start the policy.

[StuartO]

flyboyprowler - 2018-02-10 3:09 AMTrying to find a suitable policy is a nightmare! I had bowel cancer which is thankfully clear now for 4 years, yet declaring that makes me uninsurable with meerkats, and a large premium hike on other companies that will cover me. NFOP, no problem, as said, provided the doctor says you are fit to travel so I will probably join up and take out a policy.The only downside, we go away on the 24th on our travels and the NFOP policy runs yearly from March 1st, and you have to be in the UK to start the policy.

Any port in a storm if you can't get insured affordable elsewhere?

[Alanb]

I have a history of a nearly fatal cardiac and respiratory arrest almost six years ago, also treatment for inflammation of the lungs, caused by what I believe to be inhalation of agricultural overspray, has left me marginally diabetic.

My wife has a long history of osteoarthritis, and treatment has included three major joint replacements.

 

When seeking travel insurance quotes, it is interesting to note that it is my wife's conditions that attract a significantly larger increase in premiums. With some quotes being comparable to the air fares to NZ, we have switched to NFOP. Unfortunately we are having to pay our first annual premium to cover only two days. We may have been able to avoid this, but the air fares would have been higher, so there would have been little, if any saving. My wife has been declared "fit to travel".

 

It may be interesting to note that I collapsed outside Auckland Airport, as we arrived for a previous holiday. (Had I collapsed at home, it is my belief that I may not have been found, or hospitalised in time.) In the main the insurance worked, and all claims were met. We were well looked after, and I was eventually brought home with a doctor and nurse in attendance, with flights and fees paid for by the insurer.

 

Alan

 

 

[Basil]

flyboyprowler - 2018-02-09 12:09 PM

 

 

The only downside, we go away on the 24th on our travels and the NFOP policy runs yearly from March 1st, and you have to be in the UK to start the policy.

 

Why?

 

We purchased our first one in advance to start on 1st March when we were away. They provided our numbers over the phone. You have to have your NFOP membership number to get cover, this was given to us over the phone at which point we contacted the insurance side.

 

Bas

[StuartO]

Alanb - 2018-02-10 1:33 PMI have a history of a nearly fatal cardiac and respiratory arrest almost six years ago, also treatment for inflammation of the lungs, caused by what I believe to be inhalation of agricultural overspray, has left me marginally diabetic.My wife has a long history of osteoarthritis, and treatment has included three major joint replacements.When seeking travel insurance quotes, it is interesting to note that it is my wife's conditions that attract a significantly larger increase in premiums. With some quotes being comparable to the air fares to NZ, we have switched to NFOP. Unfortunately we are having to pay our first annual premium to cover only two days. We may have been able to avoid this, but the air fares would have been higher, so there would have been little, if any saving. My wife has been declared "fit to travel".It may be interesting to note that I collapsed outside Auckland Airport, as we arrived for a previous holiday. (Had I collapsed at home, it is my belief that I may not have been found, or hospitalised in time.) In the main the insurance worked, and all claims were met. We were well looked after, and I was eventually brought home with a doctor and nurse in attendance, with flights and fees paid for by the insurer.Alan

 

Wow! That's quite a story - and you're still travelling so presumably your previous episode is now regarded as an event of the time, rather than an indication of a continuing underlying medical condition and vulnerability.  Insurers would usually be expected to dump you into the "don't touch with a barge pole" category, just to be on their safe side, so perhaps you count your blessings that you can get future cover at all.  That episode is certainly something you would have to take particular care to declare unless you can find, as you have with NFOP, an insurer which takes a fundamentally different approach.

 

[flyboyprowler]

Basil - 2018-02-10 12:36 AM

 

flyboyprowler - 2018-02-09 12:09 PM

 

 

The only downside, we go away on the 24th on our travels and the NFOP policy runs yearly from March 1st, and you have to be in the UK to start the policy.

 

Why?

 

We purchased our first one in advance to start on 1st March when we were away. They provided our numbers over the phone. You have to have your NFOP membership number to get cover, this was given to us over the phone at which point we contacted the insurance side.

 

Bas

 

The advisor said that the insurance had to be in place before leaving the country, and suggested that we take out a single trip policy before we leave with another insurer, to cover the interim period. I said I would risk the first few days of our trip being uninsured, but she said that the policy could not start while we were away.

 

Did you tell them that you were abroad when you took out your policy?

[BruceM]

insurers, even the mutual who should be trustworthy and paternalistic, are these days behaving increasingly like cheap business crooks

 

I agree with some of the moral sentiments. The posting reminds us that ‘business’ is mostly amoral, and that the Financial Industry, which I had the pleasure to have spent a chunk of my working life in, is no different. What some might refer to ‘crooked practice’ others might refer to ‘good business’. We, as adult consumers, are required to be rational and to read and understand all the T&Cs whilst most businesses, rely on the fact that we aren’t and don’t – just look at at the PPI scandal, white goods insurance at the point of sale or even Investment Funds. So we shouldn’t be surprised, just always on our guard. It’s one of the reasons for legislation to protect consumers although nowadays, ‘legislation’ seems to be deemed as inappropriate and is more often replaced with ‘light touch’ and ‘voluntary code’. I could go on with examples of ‘business amorality’ in the food sector, the charity sector, the legal sector, the health sector etc etc but quite frankly, if i did, I think some of us would lose the will to get up in the morning.

 

Incidentally, as a side comment, large incorporated businesses work to the benefit of the directors rather than the shareholders. The same is true of most large mutuals who consequently work to the benefit of the paid directors rather than necessarily the members and if overall profit is a director’s primary income producing target then that will come first.

 

 

[StuartO]

BruceM - 2018-02-11 7:46 AM

insurers, even the mutual who should be trustworthy and paternalistic, are these days behaving increasingly like cheap business crooks

I agree with some of the moral sentiments. The posting reminds us that ‘business’ is mostly amoral, and that the Financial Industry, which I had the pleasure to have spent a chunk of my working life in, is no different. What some might refer to ‘crooked practice’ others might refer to ‘good business’. We, as adult consumers, are required to be rational and to read and understand all the T&Cs whilst most businesses, rely on the fact that we aren’t and don’t – just look at at the PPI scandal, white goods insurance at the point of sale or even Investment Funds. So we shouldn’t be surprised, just always on our guard. It’s one of the reasons for legislation to protect consumers although nowadays, ‘legislation’ seems to be deemed as inappropriate and is more often replaced with ‘light touch’ and ‘voluntary code’. I could go on with examples of ‘business amorality’ in the food sector, the charity sector, the legal sector, the health sector etc etc but quite frankly, if i did, I think some of us would lose the will to get up in the morning.Incidentally, as a side comment, large incorporated businesses work to the benefit of the directors rather than the shareholders. The same is true of most large mutuals who consequently work to the benefit of the paid directors rather than necessarily the members and if overall profit is a director’s primary income producing target then that will come first.

 

Unfortunately none of that surprises me in the least - and I personally find it difficult to see it as amoral rather than immoral; I think they all know very well that what they are doing is sneaky and manipulative.  Unfortuately too, there seems to be very little we consumers can do about the practices of the insurers other than make sure we don't inadvertently give them excuses to repudiate claims.

 

[arthur49]

StuartO - 2018-02-10 8:15 PM I think they all know very well that what they are doing is sneaky and manipulative.  .

Sadly thats called a Marketing Department nowadays .....................

[Basil]

flyboyprowler - 2018-02-10 9:23 AM

 

The advisor said that the insurance had to be in place before leaving the country, and suggested that we take out a single trip policy before we leave with another insurer, to cover the interim period. I said I would risk the first few days of our trip being uninsured, but she said that the policy could not start while we were away.

 

Did you tell them that you were abroad when you took out your policy?

 

Yes they were fully aware.

 

Don't quite understand that a single trip policy can cover the interim period as that still means that you will be away when the policy started, how can you do anything about the fact that the policy doesn't start until 1st of March? What about renewal, you could be away then!

I think I would just join the NFOP and then join the insurance, you don't have to tell them when you are away and you can join it in advance just as we did.

 

 

Bas

[flyboyprowler]

Basil - 2018-02-11 4:27 PM

 

flyboyprowler - 2018-02-10 9:23 AM

 

The advisor said that the insurance had to be in place before leaving the country, and suggested that we take out a single trip policy before we leave with another insurer, to cover the interim period. I said I would risk the first few days of our trip being uninsured, but she said that the policy could not start while we were away.

 

Did you tell them that you were abroad when you took out your policy?

 

Yes they were fully aware.

 

Don't quite understand that a single trip policy can cover the interim period as that still means that you will be away when the policy started, how can you do anything about the fact that the policy doesn't start until 1st of March? What about renewal, you could be away then!

I think I would just join the NFOP and then join the insurance, you don't have to tell them when you are away and you can join it in advance just as we did.

 

 

Bas

 

Thanks Bas,

 

Thats exactly what I will do, so have joined NFOP, and will do the policy tomorrow. Many thanks for all your help.

 

Ainsley