Travel Insurance Claim DENIED

*MF*

When the travel insurance was taken out - it either stated in advance (not concocted in arrears, nothing to do with other definitions, Pedro) that for cancellation because of redundancy

- the policyholder had to have been in continuous employment for more than two years with the same employer (that is the wording on most policies are far as I know)

- or, it did not state that. In which case cover was operative - but which does not appear to have been the case.

If it did state that (the 2 year period etc) in the policy when it was taken out - then only having been employed for a period of months (per the OP) - then there was no cover, never had been any cover at that point, and that was there in black and white for the policyholder to read and understand - end of story.

However, there is a point of reasonable dispute imho over the Insurer (who knows its own policy cover) then asking the Insured to send a cancellation invoice - if, as the OP indicates, this prompted the Insured to proceed with cancellation, albeit on a false assumption that cover was effective - when it wasn't. This aspect is perhaps worth raising and pursuing.


*EDIT*

@ PPD - It would help if you could check what the policy did or did not say about any required period of employment before the redundancy - like the 2 years I and other posters have mentioned - could you do this, please?

pedro123456

MF not concocted in arrears, never said they were

Let me try to explain a little clearer.

A man has redundancy cover, and pays his premium, his IC take his premium, he therefore signs on the dotted line and a contract is formed. Now in the T&C of his contract it says, you have to have been employed for 2 year to meet our definition or redundancy.

Now the Insurance bods will say, well it’s in the T&C, and that’s justifies a none payment for redundancy should the man have to claim say after 6-12-18 mths.

Now this particular T&C is unethical and should also be illegal, IMO it is unbalanced and clearly in favour of the IC and this is why.

Employment laws seek to clarify what is and isn’t classed as being made redundant, it guides both the employer and employee, and loosely interpreted, it the loss of the “job”for a specific reason with subsequent dismissal.

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

So now we have a man who has been made redundant, from his place of work for one of the above reasons, he either finds a job straight away, or has to claim benefits from the government.
The government will ask if he has had any redundancy pay and assess him on any payments, none the less letters from his employer will confirm redundancy, the length of employment, will determine if he is entitled to redundancy payment from his employer.
Irrespective of how long he has been employed will not distract from the fact that indeed he has been made redundant, in the eyes of the government.

So as far as the government is concerned he is redundant, as far as the employer is concerned he is redundant, as far as the employee is concerned he is redundant.

But for the IC he hasn’t passed the yes but no but IC definition of redundancy?????

This is where the IC definition IMO becomes unfairly imbalanced. As they state that, a man has “in their definition” to have to have been employed for 2 year in order to have a definition of “redundant”, the IC have clearly taken part of the governments guidance on redundancy and used this 2 year reference in a totally different manner for which it was intended.

What was intended as guidance for employer/employee by the government suddenly becomes a loophole clause for the IC.

And there endeth my lesson, questions on a post card please.

pedro123456

Yep a very constructive comment cogito, how about you stick to making the tea?

ALIBOBSY

My understanding is that you are entitled to one weeks redundancy after working for a month, which only increases to 2 weeks after 2 years, Then is an extra week per year to a max of 12?

Or at least that was the law when I used to do JSA a couple of years ago? Is this something else taken off us by GB?

ali x

TheHits

pedro123456 wrote: »

Now the Insurance bods will say, well it’s in the T&C, and that’s justifies a none payment for redundancy should the man have to claim say after 6-12-18 mths.

Now this particular T&C is unethical and should also be illegal, IMO it is unbalanced and clearly in favour of the IC and this is why.

Well, if it's in the terms and conditions, then it obviously does justify non-payment, and I can only suggest that rather than whinge about an insurance company being upfront possibly constituting "unethical and illegal", that people should read their policy documentation rather than heed the sentiment in your signature and wipe their jacksy with it, and if they don't like it, then don't take the insurance out in the fisrt place.

Here endeth my lesson.

pedro123456

Well, if it's in the terms and conditions, then it obviously does justify non-payment. Oh thats it then

"Here endeth my lesson", you aint bright enough to teach, sit with cogito & gordikin in the daft lads corner.:rotfl:

TheHits

pedro123456 wrote: »

Well, if it's in the terms and conditions, then it obviously does justify non-payment. Oh thats it then

Actually, yes, that is it.

It's one of my pet hates, people who can't take a bit of responsibility on their own backs, and then have the audacity to blame someone else for it.

pedro123456

It's one of my pet hates, people who can't take a bit of responsibility on their own backs, and then have the audacity to blame someone else for it.

Who cares what your pet hate is

I dont :rotfl:

TheHits

A fantastically counter-intuitive counter-"argument", Pedro. Well done. I trust that the irony of your puerile responses thus far have not been lost on you, given your exhortations to others to sit in some delusionary "stupid corner".

I can only assume that you have nothing further to add by way of a gambit demonstrating that I'm in some way wrong, however, I will apologise for not saying upfront before I posted anything that I would make you look stupid. Unethical, some might say, although I'm sure the legality checks out.

See you around.

pedro123456

“counter-intuitive, irony, puerile, exhortations, delusionary, gambit” you sound a little like raskas,
I wouldn’t like to play you at scrabble

“See you around” , I doubt it, You wouldn't get me around your camp fire dib-dob-dib