WARNING Staysure Holiday Insurance MUST register EVERY new condition since start!

alexandr

Hello. took out an annual travel policy in March 2013 having declared ALL pre-existing conditions. Received a letter last week warning me to update any NEW conditions, which I did, following an "all clear" after a hospital examination. Because of new diagnosis of a very minor condition existing then that has since cleared, I am now charged an extra premium! These new conditions did NOT exist when policy started. SO, it looks like EVERY time you see a GP, pass wind unexpectedly or have a headache, you MUST tell the insurer so they can check to see if it is an existing (covered) or NEW condition in which case they will charge more. SO, if you have anything new since the declared policy conditions, you MUST tell the insurer and pay the additional premium. This hardly seems fair, as a mid-term motor or household claim does not IMMEDIATELY adjust your premium upwards, only usually at renewal. Any comments?

Quentin

With annual policies you have to declare new conditions at the time you book a trip AND at each renewal.

Meaning you may end up booking a trip to commence after the policy renews, develop a new condition and find the insurer won't cover the trip.

alexandr

Ah, I suppose that makes sense, I was not aware! However, it is still different to other annual policies, car, home etc.
I wonder, if they refuse to cover a new condition, is it likely you can get a pro-rata refund of unused year? Just curious really.
Thanks fior the reply.

rs65

alexandr wrote: »

This hardly seems fair, as a mid-term motor or household claim does not IMMEDIATELY adjust your premium upwards, only usually at renewal. Any comments?

I'm afraid it usually does immediately adjust your premium. If you change car you would be asked to pay more (or given a return) mid-term. Same with moving home on either car or home insurance.

There have been several posts on here about an insurer not willing to cover a particular car or postcode and the policy being cancelled mid-term.

alexandr

OK. Thanks all for information.
alex

alexandr

As title. From e-mail circular.
"Remember to declare any condition you have suffered from or visited a doctor with no matter how minor (i.e. a cold) just to make sure you are fully covered"
This is getting very silly! A cold!
I appreciate that some conditions may be considered a risk for travel. But a cold?
So, If I have a cough, I phone them. They may adjust my premium. I then get a sore throat the next day, again, they may adjust my premium. Then a runny nose, I phone them. I can imagine that by now I am considered a very high risk traveller, so if I don't pay any premium increase, my policy is void? I wonder what happens if between booking a holiday and flying you notify them of say something serious. I expect if you don't pay, you won't be covered for anything.
I took out insurance as a precaution IF something happened during the term, not a means of once having tied you into a 12 month contract for demanding more money. Or even cancelling the contract that you paid for because you are now considered too much of a risk for them?
I think it wants making very clear in advertising that when they boldly state that PRE-EXISTING Conditions can be covered they should also boldly state that NEW condition during the term must also be communicated so that they can maybe charge more or cancel their part of contract if they so decide.
After all, Life insurance is what it says. Not that it will be cancelled, or massive increases when you are say diagnosed as terminally ill!
aleks

vaio

alexandr wrote: »

.......After all, Life insurance is what it says. Not that it will be cancelled, or massive increases when you are say diagnosed as terminally ill!.....

That's a valid argument, certainly if I took out an annual travel policy I'd expect it to cover everything it said it would when I took it out without additional costs or restrictions being added along the way. It's sort of the point of taking an annual policy.

I'd guess the policy contains a "do not travel against medical advice" but apart from that the rest should be fixed for costs & cover at inception.

Maybe worth a search of the FOS site to see if they have dealt with a similar case

CoffeeandStitches

There are so many things that could happen with terms over cover presented that it would be hard to list them all on one forum. The insurers cover the risk that they are presented with at policy inception. Any significant change in the risk could mean a significant adjustment to the levels of cover available.

Just something to ponder.... You take out a car insurance policy. You declare a 10 year old 1.0 Fiesta. Six months later you decide to change your car to a Ferrari. Would you expect to not have to pay more for your insurance?

It's the same principle. At inception, you are a 'low risk' with hypertension. Six months down the line you have a Heart Attack and require a Bypass. You are no longer such a low risk, premium / terms adjust accordingly.

Not saying that I agree with £19 for BP & Cholesterol though.....

vaio

A better analogy would be if I'd taken out a car policy with a clean licence and then aquired some points would I be expecting a mid term change of premium as a result? My answer would be no as that is part of the risk the company took on at inception.

Your change of car is more akin to if my policy didn't originally cover say winter sports or travel to the US and then I wanted to change it to include them then an increased premium would be due.

The FOS have looked at this, in the first link they assume that new conditions only have to be reported at renewal, in the second link they emphasise that any requirement to disclose conditions developing after the policy came into force are unfair & unenforceable and will be turned over. Cases 36/9 & 36/12 are particularly relevant to the OP

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/49/annual-travel-insurance.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/36/terms-of-policy.htm

CoffeeandStitches

Anything more up to date than 2005?

vaio

Don't know, I only looked at the first two results in the search.

A slightly deeper looks comes up with http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/105/105-travel-insurance.html with case 105/11 being worth a read

Although to be honest it doesn't really add anything to the view expressed in http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...-of-policy.htm both in the preamble and cases 36/9 & 36/12 which are very similar to the OP