ITIC REVIEW:
Sydney A full roundup of the recent International Travel & Health Insurance Conference in Australia
p.28
FEATURE:
p.38
Word-perfect cover for the US?
SERVICE DIRECTORY
p.43
Adapting policy wording to tackle rising healthcare costs
ESSENTIAL READING FOR TRAVEL & HEALTH INSURANCE PROFESSIONALS
JULY 2018 • ISSUE 210
Insurers reject government Consumers schooled on airline insolvency proposal claims denial As oft reported by ITIJ, both in print and online, understanding of travel insurance among the travelling public remains frustratingly low
In response to this, comparison site InsureMyTrip has offered some insight into the most common reason that claims are either delayed or denied, in the hope that consumers will take a closer look at the small print of their policies and be mindful of exactly what is and isn’t covered. According to the industry data analysed by InsureMyTrip, there are six common scenarios in which a claim will be denied. The first is that the reason for cancelling a trip is not covered under the policy. The second is that pre-existing medical conditions are not covered. Failure to meet the definition of being sick or injured under the terms of the policy is also common, as is the claim not meeting the specified timeframe in order to qualify for flight delay compensation. Missed paperwork, inaccurate information or the wrong claim form being submitted will rarely lead to a satisfactory outcome for a consumer making a claim, and travellers are also advised that failure to seek medical treatment during a trip immediately after falling ill or sustaining injury may also invalidate their claim. In summary, InsureMyTrip urges travellers to ensure they have all necessary paperwork and documentation well in advance of making a claim, including any medical documents and
The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has rejected proposals from the UK Government for airline insolvency cover to be made a mandatory element of standard travel insurance policies Responding to the findings and suggestions of the Airline Insolvency Review from the Department of Transport, the ABI has said that as travel insurance is already an incredibly competitive and challenging marketplace in which to operate, the addition of an extra compulsory level to standard cover – and all
the complexities and challenges that would come with it – would be ‘an unwelcome disruption’. Customer choice would be more limited as a result, and take-up could also suffer as premiums would need to go up. The issue, as far as the ABI is concerned, is not the cover that it is available, as much as a lack of awareness among the travelling public of what is already on the market. While it rejects the suggestion of adding airline insolvency cover to standard policies, it does support the Review’s assertion that ATOL protections be extended or replicated across all airlines (rather
than merely those that are part of package holidays). The ABI also supports a wideranging analysis of where there are currently gaps and overlaps in consumer protections. “While we are fully supportive of measures that improve the level of protection consumers have while travelling abroad, the primary design of travel insurance is to cover the cost of expensive medical treatment,” said Charlie Campbell, the ABI’s Senior Travel Policy Adviser. “Introducing mandatory airline insolvency cover ignores the real issue of lack of awareness of cover already in place, while increasing costs and confusion.”
CONTINUED ON PAGE 6