Travel Insurance - can travel be refused without it? Medical conditions too expensive

katatedale

First of all, I understand the value of travel insurance, have worked in the insurance industry and I have my own travel policy. But my husband has so many pre-existing medical conditions that it is so expensive to cover him - in region of £750 for single trip, or £160 with all existing conditions excluded.  He is 75 and we are going on a cruise with Cunard. Financially I'm in a position to take the risk of additional costs if something should happen, but the cruise company say that he must be insured and all conditions covered. 
Is this legal? Can they refuse travel if he has exclusions or doesn't have a policy?
There is no facility to upload policy certificate, or to confirm cover - proving no exclusions.  I phoned to ask how they check that people have a policy and why isn't there a facility to up load documentation?   The answer was that policy documents would be checked when boarding.  I can't see how they'd have time to read the details of all policies and consider that this is lip service.
In addition, how do they know if a customer has given full disclosure, or that a policy has been appropriately underwritten? There is nothing to stop me buying a policy and not declaring any conditions. I know a claim wouldn't be paid out, but that's not the point.  Cunard have no way of checking this. So what is the point in the company stating a mandatory policy being required when they don't know if the insurance company would even pay out in the event of a claim.?  The cruise company could end up with the same problem with an "insured" passenger as they would with an "uninsured" passenger.
Lastly, much of the travel insurance is doubling up on cover I already have on home insurance and private medical insurance, critical illness and life cover.  So there are only a few extra details that I'd need to insure. I'm also sailing to and from the UK.
I'd really like to know my legal position on this matter, or details of companies that only sell the bits of travel insurance that are necessary to avoid over insuring and doubling up on existing cover.
Thanks

Brie

Working on the basis that no business must provide a service for any individual then I would guess it's completely legal.  So if they say you must all wear red berets or not board then you need to get some red berets.  

That said this does sound like it borders on discrimination due to disability.  Or it's a push to make you buy your insurance from them.

marcia_

katatedale said:

. Financially I'm in a position to take the risk of additional costs if something should happen,

 If that's the case just buy the expensive policy? 

 Hospital care and/or repatriation can cost hundreds of thousands compared to £750 for the insurance 

daveyjp

Their ship, their rules and most cruises are the same.  They require evidence insurance  is in place.

This insurance will be to cover costs incurred by the cruise ship company should something happen which causes disruption whilst you are on ship.  With 2,000+ passengers on Cunard ships, many of advancing years, it will be common for people to trip, fall, get ill and unfortunately pass away whilst on board.  Some will be fine and could be treated on board, others may need a medivac helicopter, or the ship may have to get to land to offload a sick passenger,

If you have an accident whilst on shore and end up in a foreign hospital they probably don't care.

What they won't want is a ship full of people that have no insurance, so saying its mandatory (even if it is unsuitable for the individual) reduces their risk considerably.

sheramber

They are not saying disabled people cannot travel.

Disabled people can get insurance. It is just that the OP considers the cost is too high.

ccluedo

A helicopter has had to take cruisers off one ship that I know of a few times this season and God forbid, if needed that don't come cheap!
I'd pay the £750 for peace of mind if nothing else as your finances allow it or change to a land holiday where insurance would hopefully be much less. 

NoodleDoodleMan

"Financially I'm in a position to take the risk of additional costs if something should happen"

With respect, have you thought his through in detail ?

What is your worst case scenario of "something" if (God Forbid) it happens ?

It could involve huge bills.

As above, best way forward is to pay the travel insurance premium and enjoy your cruise.

tacpot12

Have you tried shopping around for his insurance? We use Avanti to cover my partner's pre-existing conditions. 

TELLIT01

Somebody falling seriously ill on a cruise can be incredibly disruptive to their schedule.  If that passenger doesn't have insurance the problems multiply.  The cruise operator is only protecting their business.  Every potential passenger has a choice, either comply with the requirements of the company, or don't travel.

onashoestring

katatedale said:

…the cruise company say that he must be insured and all conditions covered. 
Is this legal? Can they refuse travel if he has exclusions or doesn't have a policy?

Yes the cruise company have a duty of care for all passengers aboard, which would include being able to provide emergency medical help if required . They therefore can mandate that all passengers are fully insured including cover for the treatment of all pre- existing conditions. 

katatedale said:

 Financially I'm in a position to take the risk of additional costs if something should happen, 

How would the cruise company know this , unless they asked for proof of funds for each passenger - personal bank account and savings details ? Majority of passengers would find this intrusive. Instead Cunard simply require passengers to have full insurance.

katatedale said:

….how do they know if a customer has given full disclosure, or that a policy has been appropriately underwritten? There is nothing to stop me buying a policy and not declaring any conditions. I know a claim wouldn't be paid out, but that's not the point.  Cunard have no way of checking this. So what is the point in the company stating a mandatory policy being required when they don't know if the insurance company would even pay out in the event of a claim.?  

You are correct that they wouldn’t know until a claim was made - the point of it being mandatory is that in the event that a passenger for example required medical evacuation by helicopter from the ship - or the ship had to be diverted - if the passenger’s insurance didn’t cover the cost,  the cruise company would legally be entitled to recover the all the costs for the medical care and disruption from the passenger , as the passenger would have breached their contract with Cunard by not complying  with the T&Cs which made it mandatory for them to have full insurance cover . 

DullGreyGuy

The most expensive Travel insurance claim I ever saw was £1.2m for someone having a stroke whilst on a cruise ship and was a decade ago

katatedale said:

Financially I'm in a position to take the risk of additional costs if something should happen, but the cruise company say that he must be insured and all conditions covered. 

If you can afford over £1.5m (inc inflation) you can afford the £700 for a policy. None of the insurances you have listed would cover medical expenses on a cruise. Critical illness cover in theory will give you a lump sum if the condition happens to be covered but unless you have an exceptionally high limit then it easily couldn't be enough and wouldnt cover what it intentionally was bought for (presumably to repay mortgage etc rather than cover medical bills).

In practice they are unlikely to make any material checks but it gives them further grounds to recover their costs from you if you are in breach of contract for having not purchased the required insurances etc.