I just wanted to add that we are relatively new to cruise holidays, having holidayed for the past 50 years mostly in our touring caravan, all over the UK and Europe, with few risks to insure, so this cruise stuff is novel to us. We still use the van as well. Just in case you think we are snobby money-grabbing people. We just want a fair deal. In the USA a cancelled cruise (or similar) is not an insurable event cos you have nothing left to insure, so refunds are common in such circumstances. I.E you can't insure a risk if there is no risk.
Caz3121, that sounds like a sensible idea. Don't know if it is possible though. I also wondered about separate insurance for pre-cruise risks and on-cruise risks. No idea.
But zx81 (I have one in my loft!) there is little risk to be covered before the final balance is payable. I think caz 3121 has the right idea. But it still doesn't help me with my current dissatisfaction with my insurers stance.
I see that, thanks, but surely it's all about risk - the greatest occurring only if we actually sail, and if we HAD gone ahead surely there should have been a reduction in premium of the extra they included for travel in the USA.
The greatest risk at the moment is pre-travel, as many people currently are finding.
Insurance is generally provided on a non-advised basis and it is therefore up to the person buying the policy to ensure it's the right policy for them. Mine is 'Worldwide excluding US, Canada and Carribbean', a decision that was made after being informed a country I travel to frequently is not classed as Europe, as I have no intention of travelling to any of those excluded, however if I were doing something like this I'd call and ask the cost of adding the excluded parts.
zx81, everyone advises that you take out insurance as soon as you book, but I can't see the point.
Because if you don't the insurance company may dispute a claim. On the basis that you have been aware of material facts before taking out the cover for example. Other circumstances will likewise influence the outcome.
I would not dream off misleading an insurance company. It is pointless. If I am aware of an facts, material or otherwise (cos I am not qualified to judge the difference) they would be disclosed at once.
Before I posted my query I looked at a few other posts on here about travel insurance and contributors //have posted some very poor comments about this firm. Words such as "unsympathetic", "obstructive" and "dubious practices" were used, along with "don't touch with a bargepole". Yet it is a very major player.
As the replies I have had here thus far seem to think that their (the insurers) stance is reasonable I can hardly name and shame them for doing everything correctly. I do not wish to land in court accused of libel. That is why I have "chosen" not to name them.
If you want me to name someone, how about this?
If you'd read all those very poor comments about the firm before buying insurance from them, would you have gone ahead? That's the benefit of naming companies providing poor service, to act as a warning to others - you can't be accused of libel if what you say is true!
Sharing positive stories of another company can of course be just as valuable but doesn't really address not naming the poor one, although perhaps explains why you expect high standards that some companies will inevitably fail to meet.
I don't think posters are necessarily saying that the insurer's stance is reasonable as such, but just that it's legal, if they've acted in accordance with their terms and conditions and haven't breached any of your statutory rights, so when you were asking if you could claim on your credit card, it's important for you to understand what your actual entitlement is versus what you'd like to happen....
Regarding taking out insurance when you first book the holiday ,if you walked out of the travel agents office in your local shopping centre and had taken out insurance before paying the deposit IF you tripped over going back to your car and fractured your leg you would be covered if unable to travel ,leave it till you come to pay the balance and if anything happened to you you would be financially stuffed ,that is why it pays to take insurance asap..
ITS NOT EASY TO GET EVERYTHING WRONG ,I HAVE TO WORK HARD TO DO IT!
Replies
Because there's little, if any cost benefit to waiting to take out insurance and it provides you with cover immediately.
Insurance is generally provided on a non-advised basis and it is therefore up to the person buying the policy to ensure it's the right policy for them. Mine is 'Worldwide excluding US, Canada and Carribbean', a decision that was made after being informed a country I travel to frequently is not classed as Europe, as I have no intention of travelling to any of those excluded, however if I were doing something like this I'd call and ask the cost of adding the excluded parts.
I can spell, my iPad can't.
Sharing positive stories of another company can of course be just as valuable but doesn't really address not naming the poor one, although perhaps explains why you expect high standards that some companies will inevitably fail to meet.
I don't think posters are necessarily saying that the insurer's stance is reasonable as such, but just that it's legal, if they've acted in accordance with their terms and conditions and haven't breached any of your statutory rights, so when you were asking if you could claim on your credit card, it's important for you to understand what your actual entitlement is versus what you'd like to happen....