Holiday Insurance. Heres why it pays NOT to insure.

Letsby_Avenue

dzug1 wrote: »

So because a damage claim didn't qualify under the policy, you think it would have been better not to have bought insurance at all and paid your own cancellation, medical, etc, bills had they arisen?

Nice logic if you can make it work

Yes, it would have been cheaper for me not to have insured at all.

I would not have paid the £186 quotation for repairs. £10.50 0844 premium rate number calls, and the policy premium itself - plus I would still have a camera to sell as faulty on eBay.

Looking on Travel supermarket, all the insurance policies are the same or very similar, If we had a medical or a cancellation problem, we would have had to pay our own cancellation and medical costs because the policy only pays on production of a doctors note, proof of payment, jump through lots of hoops, there is an excess and a claim limit which leaves a very small window.

GlennTheBaker

Letsby_Avenue wrote: »

Even if I read the terms and conditions, I would still need the medical cover and repatriation element of the insurance.

I think this might be a case of a policy being described as having £1500 of cover when it is not.

It should have been described as having £150 personal effects cover.

No, it had £1500 of Personal Effects cover with a single item limit of £150. If you had damaged 10 items, all of which were worth £150 or less, the insurance would have covered them all. You did not read the T&C's properly - it is that simple.

zagfles

Bob_the_Saver wrote: »

Not nearly long enough for me then

I think it's per holiday, not per year:D But a moot point anyway - I'm not likely to take >3 months holiday while I'm working for the company which provides me the policy! My leave is quite generous, but not that generous

Letsby_Avenue

GlennTheBaker wrote: »

No, it had £1500 of Personal Effects cover with a single item limit of £150. If you had damaged 10 items, all of which were worth £150 or less, the insurance would have covered them all. You did not read the T&C's properly - it is that simple.

It should have been described as such.


There are no T&Cs, only a Key facts summary document which makes no mention of an item limit £150, but a further document - the policy wording emailed to me after the policy was taken out - on page 8, the item limit of £150 is neatly hidden about half way down the page.

GlennTheBaker

Letsby_Avenue wrote: »

It should have been described as such.


There are no T&Cs, only a Key facts summary document which makes no mention of an item limit £150, but a further document - the policy wording emailed to me after the policy was taken out - on page 8, the item limit of £150 is neatly hidden about half way down the page.

OK, so you did not read the Policy Wording properly - it's still your fault.

Letsby_Avenue

GlennTheBaker wrote: »

No, it had £1500 of Personal Effects cover with a single item limit of £150. If you had damaged 10 items.

You might be on to something.

The camera is one item, the lens is another - separate sales receipt bought in a different shop, and the 128GB card, again bought separately.

That would be three lots of £100 excesses and three lots of £150's to be claimed.

Thank you.:beer:

Letsby_Avenue

GlennTheBaker wrote: »

OK, so you did not read the Policy Wording properly - it's still your fault.

Point taken, but can still argue it on misdescription

GlennTheBaker

Letsby_Avenue wrote: »

Point taken, but can still argue it on misdescription

I hope you are able to obtain some form of recompense by claiming for the 3 items individually but as for aguing that you were misled, you are onto a loser in my opinion. The Key Facts Summary stated you had £1500 of Personal Effects cover, the policy wording stated a single item limit of £150. Nothing to argue against.

Best of luck.

Letsby_Avenue

I think that should have been diclosed before the policy was taken.

You are probably right, I dont think I have a case, but the fact remains, i should never be WORSE off by having inurance.

zagfles

Letsby_Avenue wrote: »

You might be on to something.

The camera is one item, the lens is another - separate sales receipt bought in a different shop, and the 128GB card, again bought separately.

That would be three lots of £100 excesses and three lots of £150's to be claimed.

Thank you.:beer:

Were they all ruined? We dropped a camera in the sea but luckily the most precious bit, the memory card with the holiday photos on, survived:) The camera itself was ruined but it was only worth about £100.