Travel Insurance Claim DENIED

PPD

Hi All,

Just had this situation where a person close to me had his insurance claim denied which I think is hugely unfair! I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on what can be done to ease such a situation??

Here's what happened:

This person was working for a company since Nov 08 and was made redundant in June 09. So he decided to claim his flights to Japan on his travel insurance as it had redundancy cover.

The insurer asked him to send them the flight cancellation invoice among other things. After that he found out that the insurer has rejected his claim as he does not qualify under the UK Redudancy Payment Act. So basically, he's lost the money and has lost his tickets which he could have post poned to a later date!

Isn't this unfair? Shouldn't the Insurer have checked his claim BEFORE they asked him to cancel his tickets!!??

I really want to help him take some action in this so I will really appreciate your comments and suggestions!

Thank you

PPD

Wammer

He should have read the policy wording to fully understand what they company classed as redundancy. I believe most companies require you to be continuously employed by the same employer for at least 2 years before being made redundant.

McKneff

Wammer is correct but i can understand his frustration.
Tell him to check his paperwork.

Next time, tell him to check his paper work before he accepts his travel insurance.

pedro123456

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Redundancy/DG_10026616

What is redundancy?
Redundancy is a form of dismissal from your job, caused by your employer needing to reduce the workforce. Reasons include:

-new technology or a new system has made your job unnecessary
-the job you were hired for no longer exists
-the need to cut costs means staff numbers must be reduced
-the business is closing down or moving

Can anyone explain why the IC definition of redundancy is different to anyone else’s definition?
You are either made redundant or your not, how can the IC stipulate you have to have been employed for 2 year, for “their” definition is met?

My guess is that it's one of the IC loophole get out clauses, its immoral and unethical

cogito

Just suppose, Pedro, that you've been in a job for a few months and you're worried that you might be made redundant. You have a much better insight as to what's going on in your business than an insurance company does. So you book a holiday thinking that it doesn't actually matter if you are made redundant as the travel insurer will give you your money back.

That's a bit like trying to insure a building that's already on fire. Is that simple enough for you to understand why insurers have to have definitions in their policies?

pedro123456

Well actually, cogito, you make no sense at all, its half baked and if that’s the clearest explanation you have to offer, you ought to stick to making the tea, and let someone with some common sense answer.:rolleyes:

cogito

Well it wouldn't make any sense to you would it? That's why you had your claim chucked out.

dzug1

pedro123456 wrote: »

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Redundancy/DG_10026616

What is redundancy?
Redundancy is a form of dismissal from your job, caused by your employer needing to reduce the workforce. Reasons include:

-new technology or a new system has made your job unnecessary
-the job you were hired for no longer exists
-the need to cut costs means staff numbers must be reduced
-the business is closing down or moving

Can anyone explain why the IC definition of redundancy is different to anyone else’s definition?
You are either made redundant or your not, how can the IC stipulate you have to have been employed for 2 year, for “their” definition is met?

My guess is that it's one of the IC loophole get out clauses, its immoral and unethical

It's perfectly valid risk assessment - that someone who has not been employed for 2 years has a relatively higher chance of being made redundant than someone with a stable employment history.
If you don't like the clause find a (more expensive) policy that doesn't have it. If you can't find one then that suggests it's an uninsurable risk - ie something that is sufficiently likely to happen as to be uninsurable.

I do have some sympathy with the argument that they could have checked his claim more thoroughly before telling him to cancel - OTH maybe he should have read the policy properly before claiming.

pedro123456

IMO, the 2 year reference is an employment law, it to aid clarity for the employee and the employer, in relation to redundancy payments.

However if someone were to take out redundancy insurance and were subsequently made redundant it fitting that they should expect settlement, not to be told “well although you have been made redundant and you did take out redundancy cover, you are not entitled to redundancy pay, and so therefore you haven’t met “our definition of redundancy”, oh and if you want to know what “our definition of redundancy” is its, in the loopholes/T&C, go read them.

Cogito, grow up, you don’t know the first thing about my claim.

peachyprice

What you are failing to take into consideration is the fact that if a person has been employed for less than 2 years they have no rights to redundancy, the insurance policy is therefore completely in line with employment laws and not rules they have made up themselves.

pedro123456

What you are failing to take into consideration is the fact that if a person has been employed for less than 2 years they have no rights to redundancy.

They are not entitled to "redundancy payment" this doesn't mean they aint been made redundant or met the governments or employment laws definition of redundancy, does it?

My guess is that the would be entitled to unemployment pay, because they had been "made redundant", as defined by the government

Or would the benefit/government system say, well you wasn't employed for 2 year so you cant have been made redundant?