Travel insurance over 60 days

InsideInsurance

The longer policies will normally take the form of single trip covers and not annual policies.

I think Amex do longer annual trip if it is outside of Europe https://www.americanexpress.com/uk/personal/travel-insurance/annual-travel-insurance/prestige.shtml?page=PR&source=insurance

Maz945

You'll find on an annual policy that if your intended duration of your trip is over the maximum allowed under the policy that NO PART of the trip will be covered. You will need to get yourself a Single Trip policy I'm afraid.

tiggerjj

fidget buzz,

just did the google thing again, top result...

http://www.travelinsurance.co.uk/longstay-insurance.htm

it is single trip instead of annual but as has already been said i don't think annual insurance has the option for such a long trip, and so you will need a single trip policy

fidgetbuzz

roddydogs wrote: »

Dont forget you house insurance is normally limited to 30 days (im sure you know)

Thx - we sort that with insurer via a daily visit to feed chicken and animals etc

fidgetbuzz

Thx - one and all - looks as if we might have to explore not only having an annual policy for "normal" hols - but possibly a single trip policy to cover OZ visits of more than 60 days.
We have recently fallen foul of this as we had a 64 day trip - and my wife then had a medical problem which meant that we had to cancel the lot - we then lost virtually all the flight costs - nothing on top of that though as we have no accommodation costs etc in Oz.

Does anyone think that there can be any legal challenge to the annual policy with a 60 day trip limit -not being forced to accept that the outward flight and the first 60 days are covered - and if anything happens after 60 days -- so be it - we are no longer covered - but we have had the benefit of what we have paid for - ie a 60 day foreign trip.

InsideInsurance

No challenge available, but as said, Amex can do up to 120 days cover as part of their top tier annual cover

Quentin

fidgetbuzz wrote: »

Does anyone think that there can be any legal challenge to the annual policy with a 60 day trip limit -not being forced to accept that the outward flight and the first 60 days are covered - and if anything happens after 60 days -- so be it - we are no longer covered - but we have had the benefit of what we have paid for - ie a 60 day foreign trip.

You are ignoring the cover definitions (eg what is a trip - a return journey, trip duration etc). And your cancellation cover was correctly refused (you cannot be covered for cancellation if the trip you booked is longer than the max allowed).

Insurers do extend cover beyond the limit when the extension is required due to circs beyond your control - though this is no use in your scenario.

If you want to take hols longer than the 60 day max allowed on your policy, you would be wasting your time and money on taking legal action to make them cover you for just part of your hols!

fidgetbuzz

I was not thinking of looking at the past history - I accept that we were not insured because the trip was too long.

I also understand that this is a typical current clause in most ( all?) annual policies.

What i was trying to open up a discussion on - is this a "fair" clause - or is it biased in the insurer's favour, as whenever anybody has a trip of over 60 days - then the insurer has no risk -- and yet and yet -- if I had a 59 day trip returned for 1 day to UK - I could have another 59 day trip etc etc ad infinitum- so insurer could be at risk for 340 days out of 365 - if I keep coming back to Uk for 1 day - but will not be liable at all if my only trip was 61 days

lisyloo

Seems quite fair to me.
After all if you bought cover for a Ferrari you couldn't then apply that cover to a mini even if it was cheaper.
What is not fair about it?

You need to buy the right product, not buy one that's clearly wrong for your cirumstances and then claim the product is at fault.

fidgetbuzz

You completely misunderstand the point - this is NOTHING to do with what actually happened in the past.

It is a simple question - is a policy which offers 60 day cover - actually being "fair" when it does not provide this cover for 60 days.
If you take a household insurance analogy - then if I under insure my possessions and there is major loss - then average comes into play - ie I can not claim the first £10,000 of damage if that was my cover level if my possessions were actually worth £100,000, but I am covered for one tenth of my loss. So travel cover 60 days - have a trip for 61 days - surely there should be some cover?

Go for a 59 day trip 100% covered - go for a 61 day trip NOT covered at all- is this an example of insurance companies manipulating the position to their advantage.

Stop and think before assuming this is anything to do with the past - it is a genuine query - is this travel insurance companies having unreasonable contractual clauses?