Missed departure possible claim

richardw

We missed our flight because of a road accident that created severe traffic problems and diversions, the journey time doubled to 4.5 hours instead of about 2.25 hours.

This is the policy http://www.swiftcover.com/travelinsurance/policy/missed-departure/
looks like I may not be covered, or was I directly involved? Any thoughts appreciated.

Incapuppy

richardw wrote: »

looks like I may not be covered, or was I directly involved? Any thoughts appreciated.

If you were directly involved then I assume you will have proof of this, because that is what the insurance company will ask for.

Bottom line is, you did not factor in enough time for your journey to allow for unexpected delays such as this but YMMV.

dacouch

You probably are not covered as it states you are covered "If your vehicle is DIRECTLY involved in an Accident". Unfortunately your cover is with Swift Cover / Axa who have a poor reputation for settling claims quickly / fairly so it probably take a while to get an answer from them

Good Luck

richardw

Incapuppy wrote: »

Bottom line is, you did not factor in enough time for your journey to allow for unexpected delays such as this but YMMV.

Yes, when a car journey time more than doubles from normal, it is totally unexpected, amazing what can and does happen.

sturll

richardw wrote: »

We missed our flight because of a road accident that created severe traffic problems and diversions, the journey time doubled to 4.5 hours instead of about 2.25 hours.

This is the policy http://www.swiftcover.com/travelinsurance/policy/missed-departure/
looks like I may not be covered, or was I directly involved? Any thoughts appreciated.

The policy says "the vehicle you were in was directly involved in an accident"

This means either was in the crash/accident itself or a situation whereby you were required to become a part of the investigation - As in the Police asking you to stay and give a statement.

I think that where it mentions 'giving good time' etc that relates public service failure and potentially break down.

I doubt very much you have cause for a claim, but its worth a shot.

dmg24

You were only indirectly involved, those directly involved would be those that were actually in the accident.

I did not realise that this type of event was not covered as standard. Learn something new everyday ...

I take it the airline were not sympathetic? That is a shame, my parents were in this situation once with a low cost airline (as were many others), but they were all still allowed to fly on the next flight at no extra charge.

richardw

dacouch wrote: »

You probably are not covered as it states you are covered "If your vehicle is DIRECTLY involved in an Accident".

Yes, this is what might probably exclude a claim, there were many others that were similarly affected.

apt

You might be asked for evidence or the company might have direct access to travel reports. In my opinion you would be covered.

richardw

apt wrote: »

You might be asked for evidence or the company might have direct access to travel reports.

Are travel reports widely available?

dacouch

apt wrote: »

You might be asked for evidence or the company might have direct access to travel reports. In my opinion you would be covered.

Thats an interesting view, on what basis do you think the posters vehicle was "Directly" involved in an accident?

Bear in mind that as proof to make a claim Travel Insurers will normally require proof of repairs eg an Invoice from a garage

richardw

dmg24 wrote: »

I take it the airline were not sympathetic?

The airline weren't, but their agents were.