Airline passenger news and views
07 February 2012 | Sign In
Acts of God insurance exclusion
When insurers should not pay up
|
Jasper Kelly Sunday 25 April 2010 |
Over the next few weeks, many people will read the words 'Acts of God' in the exclusion small print of their insurance policies. Volcanic ash is most unlikely to be treated as a valid basis for an insurance claim.
Insurers define 'Acts of God' as 'those events which are outside control by humans and for which no one can be held responsible'. This means that in all walks of life 'stuff happens' and you just have to accept it, put up with it and bear the costs of it yourself. Neither the company that sold you the service nor any insurer is going to be obliged to pick up the tab. They were not to blame!
Of course there are countless stories of the heartless insurers who took the premium and did not pay up when little Johnny broke the Ming vase, etc. and I have been among the baying hordes of journalists writing and complaining about them - but not this time. This is one of those occasions when the insurance industry is right and people have to recognise that they must take responsibility in their lives.
This means you do not go abroad and take the kids on holiday unless you can afford to do so including paying for the unexpected. People will scream obscenities at me, but just look at this logically; who else other than you should pay? I hear the word Government which obviously means the tax payers but ask why should I underwrite someone else's misfortune when they chose to put themselves in that position?
This is a topical but also quite a serious question about what we expect from both the traveling public and from the travel and insurance industries. I will welcome comment and, I am certain, censure for my views.
| Comments | Post a comment |
|
Susan Andrews, Lancashire 21 April 2010, 04:39PM | |
The multi billion dollar airlines won’t take the brunt for these major acts of God. Travel insurance policies will be under the microscope for sure. | |
| Rating (0) | |
I agree with the principle but just cannot see how this works in practice. Most people simply cannot afford to budget for open ended costs and that is why they pay for insurance. I know that it would make insurance more expensive but really what I would expect, when I take out insurance is that I have enough cover to get me and my family home. If cannot afford the insurance, then I should not travel - but I cannot be expected to anticipate events such as this. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Mrs Pennant, Cornwall 22 April 2010, 03:20PM | |
So many people are just stupid, they go off with the kids to places that they have never been before and where they do not speak the language and just trust to luck and the local travel rep. This is fine 99% of the time and they get home ok. This time, when the cards, we really down, they find that then need help and there is no-one there to give them any. | |
| Rating (0) | |
Why cannot the insurers call upon the government for cases like this? It would seem sensible that all insurers should pas an insurance tax and that tax should underwrite events beyond the expectation of the standard policy. This is what happens (as I understand it) with the Motor Insurance Bureau. They pick up the cost when an uninsured motorists hits you. They get their money by each insured motorist paying a bit into the fund. Can it be that difficult to arrange? | |
| Rating (0) | |
The article is correct in that before families go on holiday, they need to know the full cost upfront. For this to work we need a truly comprehensive insurance option that allows them to cap the costs for a fixed price. The problem recently is that the insurers have the Act of God opt out clause that allows them to put the responsibility back on the passenger - that is wrong. Give us a truly comprehensive insurance policy such that we are covered for all eventualities. If you chose not to take it, then you are on your own. | |
| Rating (0) | |
I would like to see a proper insurance scheme that did not have the exclusions. I know it would cost more but it would mean that I was covered for getting home and/or hotel bills etc. It should not cost that much more and it would give complete peace of mind. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Brenda McMaughn, Blackpool, UK 23 April 2010, 07:54PM | |
This shows what good value holidays in Britain have become. No risks of getting stranded in foreign palaces with foreign languages and no problems with money. Come to Blackpool, the weather has been hotter than many other places and we have all the family entertainment with none of the negatives. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Angela Child, Dartmouth 15 May 2010, 06:21PM | |
I agree with Stacey B,better insurance cover would be a fantastic idea, I feel people would be willing to pay a little extra for that 'peace of mind' Getting stranded in a foreign city is no fun if you havent budgeted for it and you cannot live your life around a volcano eruption and when and 'if' it erupts, some people after all save for years in order to go on a trip of a lifetime, I feel it is only fair that the insurance companies offer something more comprehensive to cover this. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Sally Bartlett, Scotland 17 May 2010, 03:09PM | |
Angela's comment rings true....I have some friends who recently were stuck in Venice due to the ash cloud, she had saved and saved to take her husband away for his 50th birthday, and didnt bargain on the extra costs she would incur as a result, and being in one of the most expensive cities in the world, where a bottle of water can cost anything up to £10.00...we need to have some protection from this eventuality, in the current situation. | |
| Rating (0) | |
