Coverwise/AXA - not recommended

deiseil

I incurred lots of extra costs 10 days ago because of Eurostart service from London-Paris cancelled.

AXA/Coverwise denying claims because it is WAR related.

Not impressed

David

TheSpectator

deiseil said:

I incurred lots of extra costs 10 days ago because of Eurostart service from London-Paris cancelled.

AXA/Coverwise denying claims because it is WAR related.

Not impressed

David

So you think other insurers would have covered that risk?

deiseil

Yes - my son got his money back for the same incident from his bank travel insurance polisy

Nasqueron

You should put this on the complaints forum, this is about reclaiming 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/categories/praise-vent-warnings

Aretnap

TheSpectator said:

deiseil said:

I incurred lots of extra costs 10 days ago because of Eurostart service from London-Paris cancelled.

AXA/Coverwise denying claims because it is WAR related.

Not impressed

David

So you think other insurers would have covered that risk?

TBF I think most people would understand the war exclusion to refer to an uninsurable cataclysmic event like... well, a war breaking out.

Not disruption due to finding an unexploded WW2 era bomb in Paris, which is something that happens relatively often and can easily be factored into an insurer's risk assessment.

If the OP thinks the insurer is applying the exclusion unreasonably he can make a complaint to the insurer, and if he's not satisfied with their response he can go to the Financial Ombudsman at no cost to him.

Annemos

Interesting question. 

In this case of a claim regarding a World War 2 bomb, the customer lost the Court case. It goes into the reasons why. 


https://www.bellgully.com/insights/a-common-sense-approach-to-insurance-policies-and-a-ww2-bomb/

I wonder if the Poster would fall under a similar line of reasoning, so that the FOS would take the side of the Insurance Company. 

DullGreyGuy

Annemos said:

Interesting question. 

In this case of a claim regarding a World War 2 bomb, the customer lost the Court case. It goes into the reasons why. 


https://www.bellgully.com/insights/a-common-sense-approach-to-insurance-policies-and-a-ww2-bomb/

I wonder if the Poster would fall under a similar line of reasoning, so that the FOS would take the side of the Insurance Company. 

And hence in the US you have "Fire Following" insurance... in some places earthquake insurance is too expensive for many people but as well as structural damage from the earthquake itself there are often also fires following the earthquake when gas pipes are ruptured etc but the proximal cause is still considered to the the earthquake. 

As such insurers offer an intermediary level of cover there, Fire Following (an earthquake), for those that dont want or can't afford earthquake cover but want protection against the potential following fires.