Travel Insurance

[anniec]

Anyone have any idea why travel insurance conditions seem more onerous (aka grasping) than other types of insurance?

I got to thinking about this when my OH had a car accident. His insurer has paid out and not asked for any additional premium for the rest of this year's policy, nor have they insisted he is no longer allowed to drive the car as they will no longer insure him. My car insurance (on which he is a named driver) is not interested in his accident. I am aware that, when the policies come up for renewal, we'll get hammered, but at least at that point I can shop around. I imagine the same applies to house insurance.

Compare this with the couple of times I've informed our existing annual travel insurer of minor changes to our health - extra premium and always the possibility that they'll refuse to take on the new risk, resulting in having to cancel any booked holidays.

Is it just because they can, or perhaps I've missed some essential difference?

[Kenmo1]

Is it just because they can,

I'm inclined to think that statement is the answer. The banks seem a lot fairer with their treatment of people who notify them of medical conditions and changes than the private companies. One private company quoted our friends three times as much for travel insurance than their bank required and the agent for the private company admitted that they could not compete with bank insurance.

I am totally neurotic about telling our insurance company everything because of my husband's heart condition. You just feel that if they could find a good reason for not paying out they would pick you up on the slightest thing.

Maureen

[screwy]

Unfortunately Maureen if you don’t inform them the chances are they won’t pay out either,so damned if you do etc,I think i would rather pay a bit more premium than an almighty bill...

[david63]

Yes, they do it because they can and they know that they have you over a barrel.

We had an annual policy that covered USA, medical conditions and age. Whilst on our last cruise I had a medical problem which was eventually diagnosed at the start of this year. I notified the travel insurance company (Post Office) and was told that there would be a supplement of about 80% of the original premium for three months cover - needless to say I told them what they could do with their policy. I then went online and found a single trip policy for our next cruise for about £100 which covers medical conditions and age - but not USA (as we are not going there!)

[Mervyn and Trish]

I think the answer to the original question is that insurers won't cover likely events.

So if you declare a dodgy ticker you're more likely to have a heart problem abroad and they'll up the premium.

Likewise if you declared that your car had iffy steering, two bald tyres and worn brake pads your car insurance would rocket!

All in all given the possible massive costs if you are taken ill abroad overall premiums still don't seem bad. I know that is of no comfort to those who do have to pay more because they're assessed as higher risk. But I still wouldn't fail to declare a medical problem.

[anniec]

My point, very badly put, was that any increasing risks during the lifetime of the policy should be covered under the original terms, with no additional premium for changes in circumstances during its lifetime. This seems to be what happens with other types of insurance. I have no problem with being charged extra at the beginning of the policy for pre-existing conditions - clearly the risk of a claim is greater.

Anyone who doesn't declare existing medical problems at the outset of a policy may as well not bother with insurance at all. I've actually had good experiences when I've claimed on travel insurance, both times for someone not travelling with us; last year our insurer paid out for illness of a 94 year old relation with about ten pre-existing conditions, any of which could probably have been linked to the illness causing our cancellation.

[david63]

any increasing risks during the lifetime of the policy should be covered under the original terms

No insurance, of any type, does that - if circumstances change then you have to inform the insurance company and they can, at their discretion, apply a surcharge.

[Manoverboard]

any increasing risks during the lifetime of the policy should be covered under the original terms

No insurance, of any type, does that - if circumstances change then you have to inform the insurance company and they can, at their discretion, apply a surcharge.

Absolutely …. read the small print relating to the policy and there will deffo be a clause on that one.

There is also a ' car ' parallel whereby one's car Insurance with a passed MOT … make a claim 6 months into the policy and they won't pay up if your tyres have become illegal in the meantime.

[JoanneB]

I think LV didn't need to be told of any medical changes during the life of the annual policy, but that was a few years ago and may have changed

[david63]

I think LV didn't need to be told of any medical changes during the life of the annual policy, but that was a few years ago and may have changed

Even if they don't/didn't I would still tell them.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I think LV didn't need to be told of any medical changes during the life of the annual policy, but that was a few years ago and may have changed

Even if they don't/didn't I would still tell them.

Me too. It's just not worth giving them the chance to wriggle

[JoanneB]

Point being is that they didnt increase premiums after payment for the annual policy

[Quizzical Bob]

What annoys me is that if you tell them that you're taking tablets for high blood pressure or cholesterol levels then you get penalised even though you have the condition under control whereas soemone who doesn't bother to have their condition checked at the doctor's gets away with a lower premium.

[Kenmo1]

What annoys me is that if you tell them that you're taking tablets for high blood pressure or cholesterol levels then you get penalised even though you have the condition under control whereas soemone who doesn't bother to have their condition checked at the doctor's gets away with a lower premium.

My husband always says it is unfair that he is penalised although his conditions are kept under control by tablets whereas I won't go near the Doctors if I can help it so goodness knows what my cholesterol and blood pressure are like. I have been called for a 70 year old check up with a health assistant but I am stalling the appointment until we get back from holiday in August because if he/she finds anything I will no doubt be referred to the Doctor and put on tablets and that will increase our annual insurance even more. I accept that it is daft of me to think like that but I can quite understand anniec's opening post on this subject.

Maureen

[barney]

What annoys me is that if you tell them that you're taking tablets for high blood pressure or cholesterol levels then you get penalised even though you have the condition under control whereas soemone who doesn't bother to have their condition checked at the doctor's gets away with a lower premium.

I concur QB

My example is that a few years back, I had chronic arthritis in my left knee but short of taking tons of painkillers, it did not require prescribed medication.

Eventually it go so bad that I had a knee replacement.

Then, when renewing travel insurance, the question asked was about any hospital treatment.
I replied yes, a knee replacement.
The reason for it, they asked.
Arthritis, I said.
They then increased the premium because I declared arthritis ?
But I don't have it now, I protested.
They have cut it out.

Anyway I paid it but it seemed illogical to me.
To charge for a condition that you no longer have when they didn't charge when I had it.

[anniec]

I have been called for a 70 year old check up with a health assistant but I am stalling the appointment until we get back from holiday in August because if he/she finds anything I will no doubt be referred to the Doctor and put on tablets and that will increase our annual insurance even more. I accept that it is daft of me to think like that but I can quite understand anniec's opening post on this subject.

Maureen

I do the same doctor-dodging, Maureen, and understand your reasoning. In my mid-sixties, I'm the only one of my circle of friends not on any sort of medication but I'm damn sure that if I went to one of their well-woman clinics I would rapidly discover I was not, after all, a well woman.

[barney]

I have been called for a 70 year old check up with a health assistant but I am stalling the appointment until we get back from holiday in August because if he/she finds anything I will no doubt be referred to the Doctor and put on tablets and that will increase our annual insurance even more. I accept that it is daft of me to think like that but I can quite understand anniec's opening post on this subject.

Maureen

I do the same doctor-dodging, Maureen, and understand your reasoning. In my mid-sixties, I'm the only one of my circle of friends not on any sort of medication but I'm damn sure that if I went to one of their well-woman clinics I would rapidly discover I was not, after all, a well woman.

You stay that way as well Annie.

I have serious concerns that doctors over medicate and rarely stop a prescription, once started.

When my dear old, departed Mum had to go into hospital at the age of 84, the first thing that they asked was where is your medication.
Well, she didn't take any, which shocked them.

I've tried to do the same all my life, and avoid statins etc that they are so keen to prescribe to you.
I take a paracetamol if I have a headache, that's about it.
For all I know, I have high blood pressure, high cholesterol and high everything else, but I feel fine and that it more important.

When I go, I want to go quietly in my sleep like my Grandad, not kicking and screaming like his passengers.

[GillD46]

That’s fine if you actually “go” barney, but having untreated high blood pressure can cause a serious stroke and lots of people do not have a good outcome from them. Everyone over 40ish should be aware of their BP and Cholesterol readings. Treating these conditions if raised, that can be totally silent, can not only saves lives, but save an unpleasant life after an incident.

[barney]

I'll take my chance Gill but thanks for your advice.

[david63]

I actually had my "MOT" this morning and came away with flying colours. All she could suggest was that as a "preventative" measure to start taking statins (which I politely declined - not taking any medication until I have to) but she must have come from another planet as she suggested that I have two alcohol free days a week!!!!

[anniec]

but she must have come from another planet as she suggested that I have two alcohol free days a week!!!!

How rude!

[GillD46]

I was put on half dose statins about 18 months ago, not because my cholesterol was raised but because a routine ECG showed a Left Bundle Branch Block - a degenerative condition and nothing to do with arteries - and the statin, together with a low dose aspirin, will help prevent a heart attack. Since I don’t want a heart attack, I gladly take them. They have had no side effects whatsoever. And my cholesterol is 3.

[Onelife]

The forum needs you all.... take Gill's 'sound advice' and get yourself down to the well man/woman clinic and get your cholesterol checked.

Cholesterol and BP are silent killers both of which often go undiagnosed until it's too late.

Statins have been around for years and l am here because of them...Our family have a predisposition to high cholesterol (father side). I have taken statins for over 20 years with no ill effects....my two older sisters didn't start taking them until my predisposition to high cholesterol was diagnosed..Both have had heart attacks..father died age 47..his brother 49

You've got nothing to lose by having your cholesterol checked apart from an extra £200 on your travel insurance

[GillD46]

It’s interesting that many of you claim your insurance premium was raised when treated for high blood pressure and/or high cholesterol. Our insurance, free with our CC and a really excellent policy, says - quite rightly - once receiving treatment the risk is actually lower, so my husband who is treated for both, and also now me - after a one year ban when diagnosed with my LBBB - have no increased premium whatsoever. Simply because our risk is LOWER than the average.

[Meg 50]

our BP meds/statins were increased - so I told the Insurance co., and there was no change to the premium.


But like others I have sometimes delayed getting something checked until back from hols in case I have to declare it