My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which has
now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no issue
at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel company
has said that they will do so but I decided to check my travel
insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential travel
but in the general exclusions area, it states that the policy does not
cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act of War whether War
is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if I
don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which has
now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no issue
at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel company
has said that they will do so but I decided to check my travel
insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential travel
but in the general exclusions area, it states that the policy does not
cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act of War whether War
is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if I
don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 11:52:04 UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which has
now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no issue
at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel company
has said that they will do so but I decided to check my travel
insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential travel
but in the general exclusions area, it states that the policy does not
cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act of War whether War
is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if I
don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
The Israeli PM has made a declaration of war.
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 11:52:04 UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which has
now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no issue
at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel company
has said that they will do so but I decided to check my travel
insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential travel
but in the general exclusions area, it states that the policy does not cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act of War whether War
is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if IThe Israeli PM has made a declaration of war.
don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
On 11/10/2023 13:06, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 11:52:04 UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which has
now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no issue
at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel company
has said that they will do so but I decided to check my travel
insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential travel
but in the general exclusions area, it states that the policy does not
cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act of War whether War
is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if I
don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
The Israeli PM has made a declaration of war.
Against whom?
It's as meaningless as declaring war against the IRA. Or against poverty.
What it actually means is that he expects the world to support him in a campaign of genocide against the civilians who have the misfortune to
live in Gaza and will now be deprived of food, heating, lighting as a
method of collective punishment.
But it isn't war by any sensible definition.
On 11/10/2023 09:27, Martin Harran wrote:
My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which has
now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no issue
at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel company
has said that they will do so but I decided to check my travel
insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential travel
but in the general exclusions area, it states that the policy does not
cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act of War whether War
is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if I
don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
Yes, why not? It is typical for insurance policies to have exclusion
clauses. The two coverages are very different.
I'm not clear if coverage of cancellation costs, includes the cost of
the policy? Maybe you can get a refund of the insurance policy cost?
On 11/10/2023 13:06, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 11:52:04 UTC+1, Martin Harran
wrote:
My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which
has now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no
issue at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel
company has said that they will do so but I decided to check my
travel insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential
travel but in the general exclusions area, it states that the
policy does not cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act
of War whether War is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if
I don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
The Israeli PM has made a declaration of war.
Against whom?
It's as meaningless as declaring war against the IRA. Or against
poverty.
What it actually means is that he expects the world to support him in
a campaign of genocide against the civilians who have the misfortune
to live in Gaza and will now be deprived of food, heating, lighting
as a method of collective punishment.
But it isn't war by any sensible definition.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:18:27 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
On 11/10/2023 09:27, Martin Harran wrote:
My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which has
now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no issue
at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel company
has said that they will do so but I decided to check my travel
insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential travel
but in the general exclusions area, it states that the policy does not
cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act of War whether War
is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if I
don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
Yes, why not? It is typical for insurance policies to have exclusion
clauses. The two “coverages” are very different.
I don't see how that stands up as they are both concerned with cover
for the same activity (our trip) and both triggered by the same cause,
the decision by FO that non-essential travel should be avoided.
Seems like the insurance company wanting to have their cake and eat it
too.
I'm not clear if coverage of cancellation costs, includes the cost of
the policy? Maybe you can get a refund of the insurance policy cost?
On what basis?
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:18:27 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
On 11/10/2023 09:27, Martin Harran wrote:
My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which
has now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no
issue at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel
company has said that they will do so but I decided to check my
travel insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential
travel but in the general exclusions area, it states that the
policy does not cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act
of War whether War is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if
I don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
Yes, why not? It is typical for insurance policies to have exclusion >>clauses. The two coverages are very different.
I don't see how that stands up as they are both concerned with cover
for the same activity (our trip) and both triggered by the same
cause, the decision by FO that non-essential travel should be
avoided.
Seems like the insurance company wanting to have their cake and eat
it too.
On 11/10/2023 17:30, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:18:27 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
On 11/10/2023 09:27, Martin Harran wrote:
My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which has >>>> now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no issue
at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel company
has said that they will do so but I decided to check my travel
insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential travel >>>> but in the general exclusions area, it states that the policy does not >>>> cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act of War whether War >>>> is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if I
don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
Yes, why not? It is typical for insurance policies to have exclusion
clauses. The two coverages are very different.
I don't see how that stands up as they are both concerned with cover
for the same activity (our trip) and both triggered by the same cause,
the decision by FO that non-essential travel should be avoided.
I assume one insurance is for property loss, heath etc, while on
holiday. The other insurance is for the holiday being cancelled. Quite >different things, really.
Seems like the insurance company wanting to have their cake and eat it
too.
Not at all. They are limiting their exposure to risk. Most sensible
people would not want to holiday in a war zone, should they pay higher >premiums for adventurous souls who visit war zones.
War is also very difficult to hedge against, very difficult for
insurance companies to deal with. Every customer may make a claim at the
same time.Most insurance policies have clauses, against widespread,
highly correlated events. An insurer needs to spread the risk. It is
just gambling really, they are the bookies.
I'm not clear if coverage of cancellation costs, includes the cost of
the policy? Maybe you can get a refund of the insurance policy cost?
On what basis?
On the basis that the insurance company is not offering cover, because
there is no holiday.
It allows them to protect their exposure, without
seeming to be so unfair. I would assume they would operate that way for >customer good will, but I really don't have a clue.
On 17:30 11 Oct 2023, Martin Harran said:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:18:27 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
On 11/10/2023 09:27, Martin Harran wrote:
My wife and I were due to go on a Holy Land Tour next Sunday which
has now been cancelled due to the war situation there. There is no
issue at the moment about getting our money refunded as the travel
company has said that they will do so but I decided to check my
travel insurance in case any issues do arise.
According to my policy, we would not be covered if we travel to an
area where the Foreign Office has advised against non-essential
travel but in the general exclusions area, it states that the
policy does not cover any cancellation costs due to "War or any act
of War whether War is declared or not."
This means that if I were to travel, I would not be covered but if
I don't travel, I'm also not covered. Is that sustainable?
Yes, why not? It is typical for insurance policies to have exclusion >>>clauses. The two ?overages?are very different.
I don't see how that stands up as they are both concerned with cover
for the same activity (our trip) and both triggered by the same
cause, the decision by FO that non-essential travel should be
avoided.
Seems like the insurance company wanting to have their cake and eat
it too.
You pointed out there is no issue about getting your money refunded by
the travel company. In addition, Pancho has replied about getting a
refund of your insurance premium. I can't see what more you would want.
I wonder if it's you, rather than the insurance company, who is trying
to have your cake and eat it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 52:21:48 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,177 |
| Posted today: | 1 |