Missed departure possible claim

dmg24

dacouch wrote: »

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

I agree with this.

apt, can you point to the policy wording that would cover richardw?

dacouch

It is worth submitting a claim as sometimes these are paid, although it is very unlikely so look on it as a bonus if it is paid.

If you have lost a large amount of money and Axa refuse you could try writing to the Telegraph's Money Agony Aunt (Jessica) or their Travel Agony Aunt as they often get Axa to pay travel claims that are not techinically covered but when the media are involved Axa pay them (You could try other newspaper agony aunts).

apt

dacouch wrote: »

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

In my opinion if the OP has evidence that the journey took over 2 hours longer than predictable and this caused the flight to be missed the the smalll claims court would find in her/her favour on the basis that the limitation amounted to unreasonable terms. You cannot advertise cover for missed departure in a main heading and then limit this unreasonably in the small print. A great majority of judges would find this limitation unreasonable and find in favour of the claim. I expect Swiftcover will know this and cave in at some point before an actual hearing. So if Swiftcover reject your claim initially inform them that you will be taking them to the Small Claims Court. If they remain stubborn it is up to you whether you wish to spend the time and risk the court fee actually bringing a claim. The newspaper route decouch suggests is also a good idea.

dacouch

With all due respect APT that advice is totally incorrect and would be a complete waste of money.

The unreasonable terms arguement is a total non starter, the policy is in effect a contract between the policyholder and the Insurer and states what is and what is not covered. It does not cover every eventuality.

On your arguement you could advise someone to take the Insurer to court as they missed their flight as they over slept due to the alarm clock breaking down and as the Insurer covers missed departure it is an unreasonable contract for them not to cover it.

The poster would waste money taking an Insurer to court and would then lose.

By all means put a claim in and when / if they turn it down speak to the Financial Services Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service. Do not waste money taking an Insurer to court on the basis of an unfair contract as the wording on this policy would not be classed as an unfair contract as its not unfair

dmg24

apt wrote: »

In my opinion if the OP has evidence that the journey took over 2 hours longer than predictable and this caused the flight to be missed the the smalll claims court would find in her/her favour on the basis that the limitation amounted to unreasonable terms. You cannot advertise cover for missed departure in a main heading and then limit this unreasonably in the small print. A great majority of judges would find this limitation unreasonable and find in favour of the claim. I expect Swiftcover will know this and cave in at some point before an actual hearing. So if Swiftcover reject your claim initially inform them that you will be taking them to the Small Claims Court. If they remain stubborn it is up to you whether you wish to spend the time and risk the court fee actually bringing a claim. The newspaper route decouch suggests is also a good idea.

Absolute tosh! You state what a great majority of judges would do, whereas in reality you have no idea what they would do!

richardw, I really do hope you get something sorted, but the above reasoning is in cloud cuckoo.

sturll

dmg24 wrote: »

Absolute tosh! You state what a great majority of judges would do, whereas in reality you have no idea what they would do!

richardw, I really do hope you get something sorted, but the above reasoning is in cloud cuckoo.

I couldnt agree more!

Apt: An interesting read:

http://www.herts.ac.uk/fms/documents/schools/law/HLJ_V3I2_Hartwell.pdf

richardw

Appears that if I was on the public bus that was delayed by this accident, instead of in a hire car, my claim would be more likely to succeed.

inflationbusting

It's worth a shot, but don't hold your breath.

A friend missed a flight from Heathrow after real bad traffic jams in London. No dice.

I don't believe that insurance covers you if you miss a flight and it was your own fault, for example, leaving 30 mins before the flight takes off. In instances like this though, common sense says it should apply.

The insurance companies know this but the real problem is differentiating between the two. If you have proof that you left 4.5hrs before, and proof of the accident, then there is a good chance. However, the insurance companies also know that there is a good chance that most people won't have proof, and therefore minimising the payout on this.

I remember my friend commenting that they treat you like someone trying it on (ie. the person that overslept) until you produce evidence to suggest otherwise. Not sure which company it was with.

Viper_7

Claim off the people who caused you the delay and the expense - those involved in the accident.
they caused it. they are liable.

dacouch

inflationbusting wrote: »

It's worth a shot, but don't hold your breath.

A friend missed a flight from Heathrow after real bad traffic jams in London. No dice.

I don't believe that insurance covers you if you miss a flight and it was your own fault, for example, leaving 30 mins before the flight takes off. In instances like this though, common sense says it should apply.

The insurance companies know this but the real problem is differentiating between the two. If you have proof that you left 4.5hrs before, and proof of the accident, then there is a good chance. However, the insurance companies also know that there is a good chance that most people won't have proof, and therefore minimising the payout on this.

I remember my friend commenting that they treat you like someone trying it on (ie. the person that overslept) until you produce evidence to suggest otherwise. Not sure which company it was with.

There is not a good chance just because you left plenty of time, the policy covers problems with public transport and accidents you are directly involved in. It does not cover accidents you were not indirectly involved in but had left plenty of time. Its clear cut.

It would be worth trying to claim but if you get it paid which is very unlikely it is a bonus