New Travel Insurance discussion area

Leigh-Anne_60

Hiya

Yeah would def fight it - Your cancellation cover is non cause specific simply 'Cancellation of the trip is necessary and unavoidable'

This is unavoidable as you cant get there! And as you said no one is stating you cant go to Isreal. That exclusion would come into force when say the FCO advise agaisnt travel to a particular country due to say civil unrest etc.

Just wait to see what happens - Im sure when your mention taking your complaint to the FOS the insurers will back down as it woud appear there wording in no way supports the declinature of your claim

HTH

LA

dacouch

Septus


Which Axa policy do you have ?

seputus

Flexicover Direct (Annual Multi-Trip - Gold level)

dacouch

Ahh the bit you copied and pasted " cancellation of the trip is necessary and unavoidable"

Is subject to it being one of the list of specific reasons for cancelling in paras 1 to 6 immediately following it.

peterbaker

seputus,

... specifically of those six reasons under your Section A ... perhaps ...

5. A government directive prohibiting all travel to, or recommending evacuation
from, the country or area you were planning to visit or were staying in, as a
result of natural disasters (such as earthquakes, fires, tsunamis, landslides,

floods, hurricanes or epidemic(s) / pandemic(s).


Or maybe ... under Section H

c. adverse weather conditions ...

..., the public
transport on which you are booked to travel

We will pay you:
.... or
2. Up to £5,000 for any irrecoverable unused travel and accommodation costs
and other pre-paid charges which you have paid or are contracted to pay if,
after a delay of at least 12 hours, you choose to cancel your trip before

departure from your home area.

dacouch

peterbaker wrote: »

seputus,

... specifically of those six reasons under your Section A ... perhaps ...

5. A government directive prohibiting all travel to, or recommending evacuation
from, the country or area you were planning to visit or were staying in, as a
result of natural disasters (such as earthquakes, fires, tsunamis, landslides,

floods, hurricanes or epidemic(s) / pandemic(s).


Or maybe ... under Section H

c. adverse weather conditions ...

..., the public
transport on which you are booked to travel

We will pay you:
.... or
2. Up to £5,000 for any irrecoverable unused travel and accommodation costs
and other pre-paid charges which you have paid or are contracted to pay if,
after a delay of at least 12 hours, you choose to cancel your trip before

departure from your home area.

They won't work as the first example relies on a Government Directive prohibiting travel to the country / area. The second / third probably won't work as they are for Travel Delay eg your flight is delayed. The current situation is not delaying flights but cancelling them in addition the volcanic ash cloud is not likely to be classed as adverse weather as the current weather conditions are not adverse

seputus

dacouch, yeah that's embarrassing. I realised my mistake before I read your post. So it is 'cause specific'.

But then my policy talks about covering me if my departure being delayed, and indeed my departure IS delayed. (I think it's semantics as to whether a flight number is cancelled or delayed. My departure is delayed regardless)

Axa are taking the 'natural disaster route' - but since the term 'natural disaster' inevitably relates to loss of life. i.e. a 9.0 earthquake in the middle of siberia where no one is killed wouldn't be called a natural disaster... and since some insurers are treating the volcanic ash as 'adverse weather' (as indeed, the weather/wind patters have definitely had an adverse effect on my trip) .......

...so how can one insurance company define it as weather and the other as a natural disaster?

dacouch

The Travel Delay is intended to cover incidental expenses if your stuck at an airport waiting for a delayed flight. The chances are they will argue your not stuck at the airport as you know your flight is cancelled so have not left for the airport.

This event is unprecidented so Insurers have not thought about offering cover (Most people would not have selected it if the option was a policy including it or a policy that did not but was £5 cheaper). So at the moment the Insurers are all working out whether or not to pay out as a matter of customer service (The government will be leaning on them to). Axa are probably the largest UK travel Insurer so they will be weighing up the costs and the postive feedback they will get from it as we speak

peterbaker

As I am sure you recall, dacouch, insurance law decrees that any ambiguity in any insurance poilicy wording will be construed in favour of the policyholder.

Secondly, "being stuck at an airport" is not part of any wording I have ever seen.

This is of course largely unprecedented, but insurance companies and airlines are both in the risk business. They both accept the risks and the profits in a good year... So I say they will have to lump the ambiguities of their contracts and the letter of the law.

Thirdly the immediate and proximate cause of the consumer losses is decree by states and state licensed quasi-governmental air navigation service providers (ANSPs). I don't argue that they acted with safety in the forefront of mind, but they grounded the aircraft. Spltting hairs between cancellations and delays does not help in this case in my opinion. Clearly those consumers that hang on for ANSPs and airlines to begin operations again will have experienced "delay" and those that decide to cancel rather than experience further delay will equally have made their decision as a result of delay.

Finally, the phenomena that caused governments and ANSPs to take the grounding decision can just as well be described as adverse weather as anything else, indeed Ryanair have done exactly that. Seriously, just because it is glass and other material that has been lofted, is that so different to giant hailstones in terms of unusual weather related stuff that sometimes grounds aircraft other than that the immediate locality of the problem spans half a continent and several days? Seems to me that considering all the investment that commercial self-interest groups and insurance companies pile into predicting their profits from exploiting the trends presented by natural disaster risks that it is they who are the ones best suited to stand the losses once the risks step outside two standard deviations of the predicted means of their calculations, not us poor consumers.

So, if the ultimate risk takers/carriers continue to refuse, obfuscate and obstruct, then clearly they are no better than Goldman Sachs and that lot with their hedging and betting. Honestly, I'd prefer the bookies in the pit to some of these so called white collar types ...

RoryOne

dacouch wrote: »

John Lewis have very little input in the matter, like a lot of policies now days they simply add their brand name to an Insurer (Axa in this case who are not the greatest Insurer to start with) and then coin in the money.

Some of these brands may find adding their brands names to gain business from their customer base loses them a lot of customers for their main businesses

John Lewis's GreenBee policy is underwritten by Axa - same company as underwrite M&S's cover and M&S have announced the will cover volcano related issues. If you download the policies they look identical (except doubly annoyingly, the M&S one would have been cheaper).

I'm pretty devastated by GreenBee's decision - it's about the most expensive travel insurance you can buy and I took it out a couple of years ago as it seemed to provide very wide cover.

It's a huge issue for me as I'm due to fly to the US on Wednesday and that looks hopeless now.