Travel industry watchdog Which? Travel has slammed insurance companies that specialise in holiday cover following a huge rise in the number of complaints regarding the implementation of ‘get-out’ clauses that often leave holidaymakers overseas without valid insurance cover.
Following an investigation into the reasons behind the enforcing of ‘get-out’ clauses, Which? Travel has accused insurance companies of changing policy terms, often after they have already been sold. This has left thousands of British travellers without valid insurance for their trips, forcing some to cancel their holidays entirely.
Almost a third of all the holidaymakers surveyed by the watchdog claimed that when they informed their insurance company of medical conditions that were diagnosed after the initial policy was taken out, they were told that they would need to pay more to remain covered or simply had their cover removed completely. This was true for those going on all-inclusive resort breaks and those booking independently, for example staying in privately owned apartments in Amsterdam. This is due to ‘ongoing medical warranties’ that travel insurers slip into policies. According to various travel insurance companies, these warranties allow them to change cover terms even after the policy has been bought and paid for.
While some packages come with travel insurance as part of the deal, those who book their holidays independently, e.g. private apartments for rent in Rome, stand to lose a great deal of money if their health situation changes, even if a doctor has declared them fit to travel.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) ruled eight years ago that it was not fair or reasonable for insurers to terminate cover for medical conditions that were diagnosed between the date the policy was taken out and the start of the holiday. It would only be reasonable if the change was so great that the risks involved in covering the traveller became different too.
The acting assistant editor of Which? Travel; Chris Gray said: ‘We believe insurers behaving like this are acting against the ruling of the Financial Ombudsman Service and we encourage members to report any cases like this to the FOS. If the customers’ medical advice is that they are fit to travel and pose no extra risk, insurers should follow that advice and allow policies to continue unchanged, not rely on an inflexible screening process. These policies are also unbalanced because customers have to produce medical evidence if they want to cancel, but insurers reserve the right to cancel without medical evidence.’



