Travel Insurance Claim DENIED

pedro123456

Look at any “definition of redundancy” you care to find, from the Employment Law, the Governments, CAB’s definition, ACAS definition, and you will find no reference to redundancy having any connection with the years spent in an employment. Is about the loss of their Job and subsequent dismissal

If I am wrong put the definition up, and lets have a look at it, show me where the definition of "redundancy" is connected to time. redundancy "payments" may be connected to time, but redunancy itself isn't, unless you know otherwise.

The only definition of redundancy that makes reference to having to be employed X amount of years is the IC definition.

IC's are miss leading people into believing they have redundancy cover, when in fact because of the IC small print, exclusive/ loophole definition many don’t.

The Insurance Companies should have to use the same or similar “definitions” as the government or Employment law, and not be allowed to invent their own “pie in the sky” definition to avoid paying someone who has been “made officially redundant”

How can IC justify saying to someone that has recently been made redundant for whatever reason “sorry just because the Government and your employer say you have been made redundant it doesn’t mean that WE the Insurance Company consider you have been made redundant, read the small print”……..its unethical and should be illegal


Should we have a separate thread “the land of make believe IC definitions” thread?,

cogito

All that my Annual Travel policy (with ACE) says about redundancy is that cancellation cover is excluded if you're unemployed or might become unemployed at the time the booking is made or if any other adverse financial situation necessitates cancellation.

I dare say that pedro could pick holes in that too.

darich

Pedro...what is your problem with insurance companies???

If the rules of the policy state that you must have been in continuous employment for two years for any claim to be vallid.....and it's quite clear in the T&Cs you are able to read before you sign up....and you're NOT in continuous employment for two years....why should the insurance company pay out?

What is your problem with others who disagree with you?

It could be argued that the person taking out the policy is committing a fraud by not disclosing a fact that would change the cover/premium. If you read some of the car insurance threads you no doubt frequent you would see that is a suggestion put forward fairly often. Similar to "fronting".

By not disclosing all the facts you are lying to the IC and effectively trying to defraud them.....and you complain when they spot your scam?
You're lucky you aren't refused other insurance policies.

lisyloo

If the rules of the policy state that you must have been in continuous employment for two years for any claim to be vallid.....and it's quite clear in the T&Cs you are able to read before you sign up....and you're NOT in continuous employment for two years....why should the insurance company pay out?

Hi Darich,

In one way I agree, but don't you think it's a little harsh to expect everyone to read pages and pages of Ts & Cs.
I know many of my own family members would struggle with the capability to read tens of pages (possibly hundreds) let alone understand it all.
My 81 year old parents would definitely have difficulty.
My Dad who can just about read would struggle.
Many who are capable ouldn't have the time.

I understand that some terms are required but don't you think that people have the right to expect some honestly and clarity.
So for example when a commonly used term like "redundancy" is used, don't you think people have the right to expect that it means just that and not some restrictive definition buried in tens (or hundreds) of pages of small print.

There are statutory laws about fairness.
So (extreme example) lets say I had a contract out to kill pedro (Just for clarity I'm being facetious ). I would not be able to enforce that contract in law.
So there are certain concepts of clarity, fairness and enforceability under UK law.

I do understand your point and I do think that people should spend more time understanding their cover, but to expect the average member of the UK poopulation (some of whom are elderly and can't see too well) to read and understand every single term and condition is quite frankly ridiculous.
A lot of elderly members of the community struggle with the basics let alone the finer points.
Whilst I understand your point there is also a case for "reasonableness" where terms are in common use in the Engligh language.

Having said that, there is no way I'd cancel a holiday without checking I'm covered and preferably getting authorisation up front.

darich

Lisyloo

I agree with everything you've said.
I also admit to being one of the "average" members of population who doesn't read every clause of every insurance policy i take out. I have a quick scan through it and i'll probably look for a section called "exclusions" or "exemptions" and decide if their circumstances for not paying out are likely to be mirrored by my own. I then decide if i want to be insured by that company.

The point of my post was that technically and contractually the insurance company may be within their rights to refuse the claim. It could be argued all day about the morality and legality of it....but in the contract agreed to by both parties, the insurance company may be right.

I'd also point out that i wouldn't necessarily simply accept a refusal from an insurance company if i felt i was being taken for a ride. I'm not afraid of writing a few letters and taking on companies or corporate bodies. In the case of the OP i'd probably argue about it and try a couple of polite letters asking for a goodwill gesture and depending on the response escalate it from there.

I'm simply saying that if both parties agree to a contract where a clause states continuous employment must have been held for 2 years...and it hasn't...then one party has lied and the other is contractually entitled to refuse payment.

AxL_695

Hi All, thanks for your replies.

I'm the friend from the initial message.

Basically, the insurance contract said they would pay "provided that such redundancy qualifies for payment under the UK's redundancy payment acts".

The letter they sent me to reject my claim was just copying this wording - not clarifying anything; When I first contacted them by phone and told them I was made redundant, they did not check how long I had been employed, just asked me to complete some forms they would send me and they would process the claim.

So, at no time did they mention the 2 years employment by the same employer necessary to process the claim however, I suppose I should have understood that to qualify for their claim, one has to have been employed for 2 years by the same employer (one of the conditions to "qualify for redundancy payment in the UK").

I checked a couple of other policies, all have a similar wording.

Thanks for your interest,

AxL.

pedro123456

Well axl, you have just found out that what you thought you had purchased (redundancy cover) turned out to be nothing of the sort.

What is a clause in the redundancy payments act, to determine if you do or do not qualify for redundancy payment from your employer, has been adopted as part of the IC “definition” of redundancy. Two totally separate areas.

Of course this definition is unique to the IC and this is one of my concerns with IC’s, they make up their own definitions and just because they declare the definitions we the public have abide by them, these definitions are by the IC for the IC, they do not aid clarity, they are merely get out clauses and loopholes for the IC’s to exploit.

And of course you are right other policies will have similar wordings, that is because the ABI (insurance minders) suggest the definitions for most IC’s to use.

The ABI also suggest, for example, medical definitions for most IC’s, these definitions differ from medical definitions by eminent medical professionals.

And this goes someway to highlight my concerns with IC’s, they are a law unto themselves and are allowed to impose their own definitions, as opposed to having to follow, recognised definitions by the specialised bodies. i.e medical definition by the medical professions- redundancy definitions by the employment professionals etc.

Anyway you have learned sadly that the picture the IC painted wasn’t a fine painting, it was cheap imitation print masquerading as fine art.

I wish you well, good luck axl

lisyloo

The point of my post was that technically and contractually the insurance company may be within their rights to refuse the claim. It could be argued all day about the morality and legality of it....but in the contract agreed to by both parties, the insurance company may be right.

Yes I understand your point.
It's worth noting though that jsut because a contract says something doesn't mean it's legal.
It sounds like it might be in this case, but companies cannot for example waive your statutory rights with a contract and they cannot get out of gross negligence by making you sign a disclaimer.
They might be right in this case, but just because something is in writing does not mean it's correct.

I agree with you about making complaints. Sometimes you have to fight your own corner. This is a great shame for those less capable.
I know my MIL whose 81 who have zero chance. Luckily I sort out everything, but not everyone has someone able to do this for them.

But, I'm on the same page as you Darich.
I also don't read entire pages of contracts. I skip to the important bits.
I try to be well informed about the salient points but I don't think anyone reads it all to be honest.