The scandal of travel insurance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems the politicians are now taking a similar view on the 'scandal of travel insurance' because, according MSN News, shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said a Conservative government "would conduct a wholesale review of the rules governing compensation and travel insurance arrangements for air passengers".
Brave words in an election campaign, but the intent seems to be there.
Let's hope an improvement comes, even if it is a two-tier system - 'comprehensive' cover at a price and 'budget' low cost cover.
At least travellers would know what to expect from their insurance and be able to make a value judgment based on plain English, rather than the let downs which have occurred in the past.
KR
FOK
Brave words in an election campaign, but the intent seems to be there.
Let's hope an improvement comes, even if it is a two-tier system - 'comprehensive' cover at a price and 'budget' low cost cover.
At least travellers would know what to expect from their insurance and be able to make a value judgment based on plain English, rather than the let downs which have occurred in the past.
KR
FOK
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many people use the phrase 'common law wife' but, in the UK there is no such status.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: NZ
Age: 55
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a long time lurker, but my inner pedant has finally prompted me to post here. As a lawyer with a depressingly large amount of experience in the insurance industry, I've had a fair bit to do with insurance contract wording.
Well...yes and no. There is certainly no law which states 'if you use this phrase in your insurance policy, then it means xyz'. However, an insurance policy is simply a contract, and you can use whatever words you like in it. The courts will seek to interpret them in accordance with quite complicated rules of interpretation, but in general terms will seek to give effect to the intention of the parties (not an easy task, of course,. Usually, though, if a phrase like this is used in an insurance contract, it will be specially defined, and the court will give effect to whatever definition is used. So if the policy defines an Act of God as 'Thunder and Lightning', then that is all that would be covered by the definition.
It's true, you can't accidentally acquire a wife these days. And in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, you never could. But in Scotland, marriage by 'cohabitation with habit and repute' existed until fairly recently - I believe it was only abolished in 2006. It is, I think, for this reason that so many people believe that common law marriage exists.
There is no such thing in an insurance policy as "An act of God." It has no legal standing if such wording exists.
Many people use the phrase 'common law wife' but, in the UK there is no such status
Paxing All Over The World
Pohutu welcome aboard! Great to have someone in the cabin who knows what they are talking about - otherwise I'll just carry on talking rubbish. 
As it happens, I do know something about marriage laws as it is a (small) part of my work. The marriage laws in Scotland were changed in 2006, which is why that aspect of history was expunged. They also removed an area of discrimination (regarding secular marriage) that still persists in the rest of the country, but I won't digress any further.
As it happens, I do know something about marriage laws as it is a (small) part of my work. The marriage laws in Scotland were changed in 2006, which is why that aspect of history was expunged. They also removed an area of discrimination (regarding secular marriage) that still persists in the rest of the country, but I won't digress any further.
My travel insurance states;
"You are not covered for.....
3. any claims arising from withdrawal from service temporarily or otherwise of the aircraft, coach, train or sea vessel on the orders or recommendation of the Civil Aviation Authority or a Port Authority or similar body in any country".
Dave
"You are not covered for.....
3. any claims arising from withdrawal from service temporarily or otherwise of the aircraft, coach, train or sea vessel on the orders or recommendation of the Civil Aviation Authority or a Port Authority or similar body in any country".
Dave
It's been posted earlier in the thread, but seriously, read the contract before you sign it. Understand what is covered and what is not. Everything is insurable for the right price, well, OK some things are not and you have to have an insurable interest etc etc but basically it holds. If the premium is low, generally the cover will be low.
I get really hacked off with people that buy insurance and don't know what they have bought - often it's through a broker who doesn't bother to explain the policy properly and that's another gripe, parasites the lot of them - but would you buy a car without reading the manual?
What did people do in the past when they wanted to travel outside their home country before the travel insurance industry existed ?
Wikipedia indicates that pet insurance was 'invented' in 1890 and came to the UK in 1947. As far as I know, having pets was quite common in the UK before 1947, and when the dog got ill, one would pay the vet for treatment rather than just having it put down.
In case it's not obvious, I reckon insurance marketing sometimes tries to scare people into buying policies rather too much ! Still waiting for the sales rep to explain why I need life insurance when I am single and have no kids....
Wikipedia indicates that pet insurance was 'invented' in 1890 and came to the UK in 1947. As far as I know, having pets was quite common in the UK before 1947, and when the dog got ill, one would pay the vet for treatment rather than just having it put down.
In case it's not obvious, I reckon insurance marketing sometimes tries to scare people into buying policies rather too much ! Still waiting for the sales rep to explain why I need life insurance when I am single and have no kids....
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So if the policy defines an Act of God as 'Thunder and Lightning', then that is all that would be covered by the definition."
Exactly, the policy must set out in detail what is included for cover. The catchphrase "Act of God" on its own has no legal standing.
Exactly, the policy must set out in detail what is included for cover. The catchphrase "Act of God" on its own has no legal standing.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ATNotts
Even with your EHIC card, you may be risking more than you think.
In France there are doctors/dentists/hospitals in the public system ( agree - needs 2 e acutes ) and ones that are not ( prives). The difference is not generally marked externally and you have to ask, but if you go to a prive you will get nothing refunded .
i believe the same situation exists in other countries too.
Even with your EHIC card, you may be risking more than you think.
In France there are doctors/dentists/hospitals in the public system ( agree - needs 2 e acutes ) and ones that are not ( prives). The difference is not generally marked externally and you have to ask, but if you go to a prive you will get nothing refunded .
i believe the same situation exists in other countries too.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's misleading to say it has no "legal standing" - rather, it has no set legal definition (just as the phrase "force majeure" has no legal definition in English law, so a "force majeure event" is whatever is defined as such in the contract).
If a policy stated that cover for "acts of God" was excluded, a court would not just disregard the words, it would try to decide (taking a number of factors into account) what it was intended that those words would mean in the context of that particular contract.
If a policy stated that cover for "acts of God" was excluded, a court would not just disregard the words, it would try to decide (taking a number of factors into account) what it was intended that those words would mean in the context of that particular contract.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If a policy stated that cover for "acts of God" was excluded, a court would not just disregard the words, it would try to decide (taking a number of factors into account) what it was intended that those words would mean in the context of that particular contract."
If this is true then I have been misinformed. I have been told that the actual "Acts of God" that were excluded would have to be listed i.e. it would state that hurricanes, volcanoes etc. were excluded from this policy under the heading of "Acts of God". The phrase used on its own with no specific examples would be null and void. As I say, perhaps I have been misinformed.
If this is true then I have been misinformed. I have been told that the actual "Acts of God" that were excluded would have to be listed i.e. it would state that hurricanes, volcanoes etc. were excluded from this policy under the heading of "Acts of God". The phrase used on its own with no specific examples would be null and void. As I say, perhaps I have been misinformed.
An Act of God is a volcano.
A decision by sundry aviation bureaucrats to ban aviation across a continent because they cannot bring their collective minds to understand the difference between keeping a sensible distance from it, which has been done with thousands of eruptions in past decades without a single incident, and what happened to Eric Moody (who was effectively allowed to unwittngly get visual with the volcano), and then further bureaucatic shilly-shallying once they realise the stupidity of what they have done, is by no means an Act of God.
A decision by sundry aviation bureaucrats to ban aviation across a continent because they cannot bring their collective minds to understand the difference between keeping a sensible distance from it, which has been done with thousands of eruptions in past decades without a single incident, and what happened to Eric Moody (who was effectively allowed to unwittngly get visual with the volcano), and then further bureaucatic shilly-shallying once they realise the stupidity of what they have done, is by no means an Act of God.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[in response to Nick Riviera] I think you have been. I've had a quick look and I can't find anything that suggests that is the case. It's true that, if a policy included the words "act of God" without any further elaboration, the policy-holder could argue that a particular event wasn't, in fact an act of God, but there is plenty of case law out there that the insurer could cite in support of his argument that it was.
Here's a nice definition for an 1864 case:
"Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they do occur, therefore, are calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that may result from them."
Generally, the phrase seems to have been taken to refer to natural disasters.
Here's a nice definition for an 1864 case:
"Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they do occur, therefore, are calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that may result from them."
Generally, the phrase seems to have been taken to refer to natural disasters.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a policy called EHIC + which gives an unlimited number of 31 day trips in Europe for a year and covers, to some degree, the items which the EHIC does not. The cost is £28 a year.
