| Author |
Message |
tomd25 
|
|
Post subject: Would SCUK insurance cover the costs of being volcanoed?
 Posted: Apr 20, 2010 - 05:00 PM
|
|
First post: Apr 20, 2010
Total posts: 3
Status: Offline
|
|
This is purely hypothetical as I'm still sat at my desk in England, and the only person I know affected by the volcano has been lucky enough to be put up in good accommodation, free of charge by their airline - but their travel insurance won't pay anything out, and there's thousands of people far less lucky, so I got to thinking...
Would the SCUK insurance cover me for anything in the event I was stranded somewhere? It seems like a pretty good policy overall and wasn't especially cheap, so I'd hope so... can't find anything in the policy document either way.
I know it's a ridiculously rare event, but the nightmare some people are going through with it makes me think it's worth spending that bit extra on flights - see easyJet etc. sorting people out with accommodation and food vs Ryanair effectively saying f**k you - and insurance, just in case something did happen! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
dunx
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Would SCUK insurance cover the costs of being volcanoed?
Posted: Apr 20, 2010 - 06:08 PM
|
|
First post: Oct 07, 2004
Total posts: 9313
Location: Herts, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm not 100% sure, but I will contact them to find out.
I have an annual SCUK policy that covers the family for all holidays worldwide. I've just spent several grand on a holiday, so have no idea whether I'd be covered if the volcano is still active when I fly at the end of July. |
_________________
SCUK Editor • Me on Facebook • Neverland
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Wigsy
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 20, 2010 - 06:27 PM
|
|
First post: Jul 14, 2006
Total posts: 157
Location: London
Status: Offline
|
|
I have the SCUk annual policy and when I phoned them earlier I was told that my policy doesn't cover me for cancellation/abandonment due to volcano eruptions.
I am supposed to going to Tignes this Thursday but its not looking good at the moment.
Volcano's suck! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
tomd25
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 20, 2010 - 06:35 PM
|
|
First post: Apr 20, 2010
Total posts: 3
Status: Offline
|
|
|
Wigsy wrote:
I have the SCUk annual policy and when I phoned them earlier I was told that my policy doesn't cover me for cancellation/abandonment due to volcano eruptions.
I am supposed to going to Tignes this Thursday but its not looking good at the moment.
Volcano's suck!
Gutted, I'd hoped it might do. Fingers crossed for both of you.
Wonder if it'd cover the cost of you being stranded out there, might email them asking.
Wish the bloody thing'd just f**k off...! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
tomd25
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 08:41 AM
|
|
First post: Apr 20, 2010
Total posts: 3
Status: Offline
|
|
Response from Travel and General:
Thank you for your email.
Re policy holders who have already travelled.
There is no cover for any additional accommodation or other expenses incurred. These costs should be covered by the airline.
If you are unable to return on your normal scheduled flight due to this natural disaster then the insurance will automatically extend for 7 days. If you are still unable to return within the 7 extended days then the Underwriters will require more information in order to confirm if cover will still apply.
Re policy holders who are yet to travel.
This is not an insured peril. There is no cover under the policy should the policy holder be unable to travel on their holiday or for any additional accommodation or travel costs incurred while waiting to depart. Tour Operators/Airlines are either re-scheduling passengers or offering them a full refund. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mac83
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 09:26 AM
|
|
First post: Jan 01, 2008
Total posts: 1095
Location: Sheffield
Status: Offline
|
|
|
Quote:
There is no cover for any additional accommodation or other expenses incurred. These costs should be covered by the airline.
Don't count on this though! I was stuck for an extra day in Toronto in April because of the weather in Paris. Our connection flight via Charles-de-Gaulle was cancelled.
KLM wouldn't even pay for a Taxi, never mind additional accommodation! I was told that because it was due to the weather and not their fault then there was nothing they would do for us. I imagine that a freak volcanic eruption comes under the same conditions....  |
_________________
Dennis Dixon Appreciation Society
www.pro-lodge.com - The fully catered chalet experience.
Signature: This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. It is usually something clever or amusing - but not always. There is a 255 charac
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
dunx
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 09:45 AM
|
|
First post: Oct 07, 2004
Total posts: 9313
Location: Herts, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
This is their reply. I'd argue the definition of "weather" with them, which is atmospheric conditions and so should include volcanic fallout (nuclear fallout is specifically excluded).
Quote:
Ash disruption
Policyholders who have already travelled
If a policyholder has already travelled then there is no cover for any additional accommodation or other expenses incurred. These costs should be covered by the airline. The insurance will automatically extend for a further 7 days if they are unable to return on the scheduled return date. If the policyholder is unable to return within the 7 extended days the Underwriters will require more information in order to confirm if cover will still apply.
Policyholders who are yet to travel
The ash disruption is not an insured peril under travel delay. The policy only covers bad weather or mechanical or technical problems with the aircraft. There is no cover under the policy should the policyholder be unable to travel on their holiday or for any additional accommodation or travel costs incurred while waiting to depart.
Tour operators should provide alternative arrangements or provide a refund in this situation if the customer has purchased a package holiday, as imposed by The Package Travel Regulations 1992. If the customer has purchased a flight and accommodation separately, then the flight will be refunded by the airline, but the accommodation aspect would not.
We will rearrange a policyholder’s insurance if they move their holiday to a later date.
|
_________________
SCUK Editor • Me on Facebook • Neverland
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
papalambert
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 09:51 AM
|
|
First post: Nov 24, 2004
Total posts: 62
Status: Offline
|
|
I'd wondered about this, thanks for getting the answer.
So there you go, the insurance isn't quite as good as it seems. I'll be very seriously considering whether it is worth taking out again, even with its snowboard friendly aspects.
My view is that any insurer that is refusing to pay out to people stranded on this and trying to lay it all on airlines who clearly are not paying up, is not worth doing business with and should be avoided.
If ever there was something travel insurance should cover it is exactly this type of scenario and there are people stuck with bills running into thousands due to the travel industry's shameless buck passing. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nickmotture
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 10:00 AM
|
|
First post: Jan 09, 2006
Total posts: 10414
Location: Washington DC USA
Status: Offline
|
|
| But thats no different than any insurance its not just the scuk one. No insurance covers you for natural disasters. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ace_mcgraw
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 10:08 AM
|
|
First post: Feb 20, 2007
Total posts: 4912
Location: That snowboarding hotbed, Norfolk
Status: Offline
|
|
|
papalambert wrote:
I'd wondered about this, thanks for getting the answer.
So there you go, the insurance isn't quite as good as it seems. I'll be very seriously considering whether it is worth taking out again, even with its snowboard friendly aspects.
My view is that any insurer that is refusing to pay out to people stranded on this and trying to lay it all on airlines who clearly are not paying up, is not worth doing business with and should be avoided.
If ever there was something travel insurance should cover it is exactly this type of scenario and there are people stuck with bills running into thousands due to the travel industry's shameless buck passing.
That's a pretty short sighted view - ditching an insurance policythat does so much for you as a snowboarder, cos it doesn't cover something that I doubt any other insurance company would cover! |
_________________
Nice Photos  http://www.flickr.com/photos/ace_mcgraw/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
papalambert
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 10:28 AM
|
|
First post: Nov 24, 2004
Total posts: 62
Status: Offline
|
|
There's plenty of insurance companies that are doing the decent thing and paying out, or at least doing something to help with costs.
And there are others completely passing the buck.
I know which kind I'd prefer to deal with.
The SCUK insurer's response is a pretty clear, 'we've washed our hands of this, you're on your own.'
And actually, I'd say it is more shortsighted for insurers to refuse to pay out on something like this that is exactly the kind of thing travel insurance is designed for.
To be expected though from an industry that does very little to bathe itself in glory. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ace_mcgraw
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 11:03 AM
|
|
First post: Feb 20, 2007
Total posts: 4912
Location: That snowboarding hotbed, Norfolk
Status: Offline
|
|
Just goes to show, read the small print! No insurer is gonna pay out on anything, unless they have to.
Those that are paying out - are they the bigger companies who can afford a bit of a payout for advertising purposes? |
_________________
Nice Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/ace_mcgraw/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nickmotture
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 11:23 AM
|
|
First post: Jan 09, 2006
Total posts: 10414
Location: Washington DC USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Its in the small print of every single insurance poilcy in exsitence, natural disasters are not covered. Those that are paying out are doing so for good publicity purposes..which is fine but hey wont do it next time.
And its not passing the buck, if its written in the policy then you're not covered there is no buck to pass. You sign and pay for a policy then you agree to its terms. No point complaining about how unfair it is later. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
dunx
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 11:40 AM
|
|
First post: Oct 07, 2004
Total posts: 9313
Location: Herts, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Hold on there!
I think it's been a bone of contention generally that this should come under the terms of "bad weather" which is included in the vast majority of insurance policies. This is nothing specific to SCUK's policy, which is why there's talk of the airline industry suing the UK government or class actions being brought by passengers against the UK government... not their insurers.
The airlines are obliged to look after you and reschedule your flight if they cancel their flights, which is what is happening. So the airlines are "paying up" under their obligations.
Insurance policies also exclude things like terrorist attack, nuclear attack, war, etc., etc. Again, all things that you'd hope to be insured against if they affected you, but which aren't to reduce financial exposure and keep premiums low.
If anybody knows any different then please let us know. |
_________________
SCUK Editor • Me on Facebook • Neverland
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
papalambert
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 - 02:53 PM
|
|
First post: Nov 24, 2004
Total posts: 62
Status: Offline
|
|
Take it easy. I'm not saying the SCUK policy isn't good. It is good and is very good for snowboard trips, especially if you ride park and off piste.
I'm merely pointing out it isn't flawless.
Not all policies include the same natural disaster opt outs - some are more stringent than others. And while most include some form of clause, it is up to insurers to decide when they help their customers.
In this instance, many have done at least something, some are doing nothing.
There are two situations.
1) You are stranded. In this instance whether it is the airline or tour operator's responsibility is one some are arguing, especially as to how far they'll extend a helping hand. (Today I spoke to someone who's business partner is stuck in Tokyo and the airline gave him one night's stay and then washed their hands of him). This situation will take time to sort out, in the meantime some insurers are extending a helping hand but others aren't. All I'm saying is that I'd prefer to be with one that does and that's worth considering when taking out a policy.
2) You have a holiday booked and couldn't go. In this case airlines are refunding or offering replacement flights if you had yours cancelled. Tour operators should refund your whole holiday. But if you booked independently airlines will not cover the cost of your missed accommodation. Many insurers have said they will pick up all or some of the costs here. The SCUK insurers appear to be saying they will not.
It's just something to consider.
I'm not singling out the SCUK insurer for criticism, I'm criticising all those insurers who have once again failed to do the decent thing.
This is a round-up of the situation http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/ ... page_id=37 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snowboard Club 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Maximize
RSS Feed
