Travel insurance claim - not lived with partner for 6 months

schnide

Hi all, hoping you can help.

I booked a trip to Norway for my girlfriend's 30th, due to leave 12th December. This cost several thousand pounds. On 7th December she was diagnosed with suspected swine flu and told not to travel.

I didn't think I had travel insurance and faced a £400 cost of rebooking, but on 10th December I discovered I had AXA travel insurance through my Co-op bank account. I called AXA, explained the situation and asked if I could claim on it - they said yes, for a £50 per person excess, as long as I kept the Tamiflu box and reference number, which I did.

They've now processed the claim and told me they need evidence of me having lived with my girlfriend for 6 months to prove she is my partner. I've been with her 6 months, but we've only lived together for three months and can only prove it for one. They never told me this clause when I called initially and if they had, I would've paid to rearrange the holiday instead.

I don't want to ask them what my options are because I'm worried they might refuse my claim full stop - I might be wrong, but I'm under the impression it's their job to stop claims at every possible point, however justified the claim might be.

Can anyone help at all? I really can't afford to lose this money, and have made all actions in good faith at every step of the way.

With sincere thanks, and Happy New Year to you all -

schnide

huckster

Hi

My advice is just to give the Insurers the full information and let them advise you of the policy terms/conditions which may affect the claim. You can then argue about whether this is fair or not and then follow the Insurers complaints procedure if you are unhappy. At the end of the complaint process if you are still not happy, you could then go to the FOS.

The 6 months living together/relationship question is pretty standard. To claim under the policy, you have to be able to evidence that your girlfriend is your partner or fiancee' . The 6 month bit may not be written into the policy as such, so the Insurers may be ok that you can show you have lived together for 1 month.

Your are always wise to be totally honest with Insurers as if you are not, they will only use this against you. Also it would not help your cause with the FOS if it got that far.

dogbot

I might be wrong, but I'm under the impression it's their job to stop claims at every possible point, however justified the claim might be.

You are wrong. Sorry, but really you are. Insurer's simply can't do this any more because of stringent FSA and FOS supervision (ok, i think we can admit that back in the early 1990's and before this was often a priority for claims staff, and thank goodness that it is no longer that bad). If a claim is justified the insurer has no interest in delaying it - a delay can only cost more money in staff time, risking a complaint, risking the cost of a FOS refferal etc.

Claims staff will still make sure that a claim falls within the conditions and terms of a policy - that is only natural.

have made all actions in good faith at every step of the way.

No one is doubting that, so don't worry.

They never told me this clause when I called initially and if they had, I would've paid to rearrange the holiday instead.

They don't need to! You will have had access to a policy document which includes definitions, terms and conditions. HOWEVER, if as stated above, the definition is NOT in the policy, then this is a different matter. You can show you do live together and have done for 3 months, which shows they are your partner.


The problem here appears to be that cover is only provided by the policy for cancelation/rebooking due to illness of a partner or spouse and the insurer defines partner - apparently as having lived together for 6 months. Many policies will only offer this cover if you are actualy married/civil partnered. Evidently, your relationship does not fall within the definition so, very sadly, is not covered.

I would suggest, however, that you gather what evidence you have of living together and of the two of you getting together - facebook update? Photos? Submit these and see if they will pay. You can always complain and state that you feel the definition is undreasonable and that given that you have lived together for 3 months that this is reasonable. Might not work though!

schnide

I've just called AXA. They've told me their policy wording says it will cover any couple who've lived together for six months and/or under common law.

While I do understand what you're saying dogbot, not paying on this basis would be getting out of the claim at a possible point despite the claim being justified - I called AXA to ask if I'd be covered, and they said I would. I continued on this basis.

They are now relying on me not having gone through the entire policy as well - which would have been me suggesting that their word wasn't good enough - to not pay out the money I've lost.

What is legal and what is right is not always the same thing, and at this point it looks like it definitely isn't. A claims handler is calling me back so I will see what the latest is then.

Thank you to both of you for your advice, it's much appreciated.

huckster

Schnide

I could not see any mention of the 6 months in the AXA Travel Policy on the Axa site I looked at online. This is not to say that your policy via the Co-op does not include this.

My advice for your future Travel Insurance requirements, is to look at arranging a better policy elsewhere. Sometimes the Insurance that comes packages with a Bank account or credit card is not that great. The cover is often a watered down version and may include more rigorous terms/conditions. Also Axa don't have the best reputation.

Quentin

The co-op travel policy (that comes complimentary with their privilege accounts) clearly defines a "partner" on page 8 of the policy:

Partner– the spouse or legal Partner of the First Named Account Holder at the same address in a relationship (for six months or more).

You will have agreed to the terms of the policy when first signing up for it.

schnide

Legally you may argue that I agreed to these terms but I didn't, I upgraded my bank account and this policy came with it. Was I meant to refuse the account upgrade because of one clause in an additional benefit to it?

So thanks for your help - but please don't tell me what I did or didn't do.

lisyloo

Was I meant to refuse the account upgrade because of one clause in an additional benefit to it?

If you didn't like the terms of the travel insurance then you should have used another policy instead.
Whether this item alone is worth refunsing the upgrade is for you to decide, but essentially YES, you are responsible for making sure the policy meets your needs.

It may not feel like you consciously agreed, but you "acquiesed" by accepting this cover for your protection.

Whose responsibility do you think it is to make sure it's suits your needs, if it's not yours?

schnide

lisyloo wrote: »

If you didn't like the terms of the travel insurance then you should have used another policy instead.
Whether this item alone is worth refunsing the upgrade is for you to decide, but essentially YES, you are responsible for making sure the policy meets your needs.

It may not feel like you consciously agreed, but you "acquiesed" by accepting this cover for your protection.

Whose responsibility do you think it is to make sure it's suits your needs, if it's not yours?

"I didn't think I had travel insurance and faced a £400 cost of rebooking, but on 10th December I discovered I had AXA travel insurance through my Co-op bank account. I called AXA, explained the situation and asked if I could claim on it - they said yes, for a £50 per person excess, as long as I kept the Tamiflu box and reference number, which I did."

lisyloo

So what is your complaint?
That they gave you false information on the assumption you were eligible?

schnide

No, it was not an assumption - or at least, no more than if someone answers your question then you assume they are giving you the answer they will say is reliable.

I imagine your response will be "you should have checked the policy in addition to their answer." Following that logic, they should either have:

- Warned me to check the policy first when they told me outright I could claim
- Or not told me whether or not I could have claimed, but directed me to the policy to determine for myself