Insurance firms do not prosper by streamlining the claims process. At times, the stringency they demand is borderline insensitive, if not outright unreasonable.
Emphasizing the significance of travel insurance has been a consistent message on our pages, largely as a result of the numerous online interactions we have with our readers on a regular basis. Many of them could have averted significant financial loss, inconvenience and emotional distress by merely investing 30 or 40 pounds in insurance coverage prior to their trip.
However, we sometimes come across incidences that lead us to doubt the value of these policies, with one such instance emerging this week.
One of our readers, whom we’ll refer to as Mary, reached out to us after encountering insurmountable hurdles while lodging a claim against her travel insurance policy following her brother’s recent demise.
Her brother, a man in his mid-50s, was diagnosed with a severe illness last year, around the same time Mary renewed her annual travel policy with a company she had been patronising for some years. Mary, buffered by the comforting knowledge that his disease was highly manageable, was obviously anxious about his condition.
Taking trips abroad in February and April, Mary and her partner enjoyed the reassurance of having their travel insurance policy should anything amiss occur. Fortunately, their travels were uneventful.
Moreover, her brother was exhibiting promising signs of recovery from his treatment and was even able to participate in numerous sports events and family gatherings, largely as an outpatient.
Mary and her husband had made plans for a week’s vacation in Croatia in summer and were set to go in August. Unfortunately, things took a drastic turn.
Sadly, on the very day they were scheduled to travel, her brother, who was still undergoing treatment, passed away unexpectedly, she writes. “His abrupt decline led us to cancel our holiday just a day before departure.”
Although Mary acknowledges the travel insurance company’s prompt response and “professional” representatives after filing her initial claim, she expresses significant worry about how the claim procedure is being managed.
She shares, “The first requirement they are insisting on is that a medical certificate must be filled out. I have an issue with this form because it requests details that, in my opinion, pertain to my brother’s confidential medical records, which I don’t have the authority to request.”
Mary is in a predicament as certain conditions detailed by the insurance company render her unable to make an insurance claim. She’s been given papers by the insurer that require her brother’s GP to sign a declaration affirming explicit permission to share his information for claim validation purposes. However, this isn’t achievable since her brother is deceased.
Mary and her family, in an effort to prove the authenticity of their claim, gave the insurer a copy of her brother’s death certificate. She’s confident this should be sufficient evidence.
One more problem has come to light. Certain exclusions in the policy terms and conditions, which most policyholders never bother to peruse, have raised her concern. One particularly troubling clause states that claims linked to health conditions of kin or travel buddies, whether they are in the process of treatment, lined up for it, or aware that such hospital treatment is necessary, won’t be entertained.
She’s worried about the implications this might have. If anyone in her or other families are undergoing treatment, such as for cancer, would family members covered by this travel insurance be disallowed from travelling, both leisurely and for work?
When Mary earmarked her holiday for August back in June, her brother’s ailment did not raise any concerns for her. Sadly, a representative of the insurance company inferred that her claim might be unsuccessful due to the aforementioned exclusion clause while saving her the trouble of getting her departed brother’s medical form countersigned.
Mary admits they haven’t formally turned down her claim yet, she hasn’t even registered a complaint with the company. However, she asks for advice or intervention. She acknowledges that dealing with regulations and red tape may be extra challenging for those grieving a loss.
Our team has reached out to Mary’s insurance provider but anticipates the viewed exclusion clause may hamper coverage of her holiday. They are currently reviewing her case.
It is highly prevalent for providers to prominently display the advantages of their policies on their websites, whilst subtly hiding clauses that absolve them of payment responsibilities. One often encountered clause denies insurance for any health issues that a close relative or travel companion may have been diagnosed with or are possibly awaiting treatment for. This includes conditions which they are aware of but have not been officially diagnosed with.
Questionably, individuals are expected to be privy to the complete health records of their family members – inclusive of siblings and parents – and remain informed regarding any health concerns, diagnosed or undiagnosed. It remains a pertinent issue that the wider travel insurance industry should address.