Travel Insurance? Don't!

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm all for more data points but please keep the following key points in mind.

1. If you never had to actually use your insurance then it's not really a relevant data point.

2. If you DID have to use your insurance then PLEASE include the seller, insurer, and underwriter.

Thanks!

 

[I always rode the Southern]

I'm all for more data points but please keep the following key points in mind.

1. If you never had to actually use your insurance then it's not really a relevant data point.

2. If you DID have to use your insurance then PLEASE include the seller, insurer, and underwriter.

Thanks!

I would have included the insurer, but can't remember the name. It was offered when I booked the cruise with Costa, as part of the package.

edit to add I can tell you they gave me no problems at all. I sent in receipts and they paid no questions asked.

 

[VentureForth]

I'm all for more data points but please keep the following key points in mind.

1. If you never had to actually use your insurance then it's not really a relevant data point.

2. If you DID have to use your insurance then PLEASE include the seller, insurer, and underwriter.

Thanks!

That's not necessarily true. It would serve to determine what percentage of purchases are actually needed. Insurance is purchased to mitigate risk. If 100 policies are purchased and only one is redeemed, the risk is low. However, if the number of purchases is 25 and 10 are redeemed, the risk seems to be much greater. If you put all the people that bought a policy and didn't use it in the same bucket as those who didn't, then you have to conversely include all those who didn't buy the policy that would have benefited to get a good feel for the risk.

A data point is never irrelevant. It's simply more data.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm all for more data points but please keep the following key points in mind.

1. If you never had to actually use your insurance then it's not really a relevant data point.

2. If you DID have to use your insurance then PLEASE include the seller, insurer, and underwriter.

Thanks!

That's not necessarily true. It would serve to determine what percentage of purchases are actually needed. Insurance is purchased to mitigate risk. If 100 policies are purchased and only one is redeemed, the risk is low. However, if the number of purchases is 25 and 10 are redeemed, the risk seems to be much greater. If you put all the people that bought a policy and didn't use it in the same bucket as those who didn't, then you have to conversely include all those who didn't buy the policy that would have benefited to get a good feel for the risk.

A data point is never irrelevant. It's simply more data.

Data is never irrelevant?

That's almost like a hoarder saying trash is never irrelevant.

As someone who is forced to manage terabytes of digital trash as part of their job I would beg to differ.

 

[tonys96]

My trip this January will cost $3000, travel insurance $34. Why not?

Be sure to look at the face amount of the coverage. I do not think it is $3000.

 

[lionelhoguy]

Good call, we have coverage for about half. I should have read the policy before. I guess I just assumed that it would cover the whole cost.

 

[Nathanael]

Booked a 7 day cruise in 2008 and because my mother was in a nursing home, decided to take the less than $30 trip insurance option, just in case. Our last port was cozumel and returning to the ship I tripped, fell and fractured my shoulder x3. The insurance paid for the medical costs and pain meds provided by ships Dr.(which my med insurance didn't cover) and all of my copays for treatment, which included several months of physical therapy, and massage therapy, which my insurance didn't cover at all. Very happy I took that coverage.

When you're travelling *out of the US*, you are quite likely to need travel insurance to cover *medical costs*, because most American medical insurance (which is consistently awful) won't cover out-of-US medical costs *at all*.

Actually, if your medical insurance is an HMO with a severely restricted network of providers (very common -- crappy, crappy US insurance), you may need travel insurance within the US for the same reason -- if you are travelling to an area where your medical insurance won't pay for anything.

I mentioned this already -- you need medical cover. But travel insurance *is largely for medical costs*. If you expect your medical costs to be covered by your standard medical insurance, then there's little or no point in travel insurance, and there's no point in it for other types of costs - get refundable tickets and reservations instead.

 

[Bob Dylan]

True the Medical Insurance and Refundable or Changeable Reservations Comments! Whether for Transportation or Hotels, It's ithe Only Way to Travel!!!

 

[me_little_me]

In many cases, the insurance is overpriced because much is refundable or changeable.

My big issue with the insurance and with those defending the "pre-existing conditions" issue is that this is often used by insurance companies to evade paying. Many state that if you saw a doctor about it withing the last six months (or more for some companies), then it is pre-existing. So if I see my doctor for an issue, even if it turns out to be a non-problem or if it is a checkup (with good results) and then suddenly have an unexpected but "related" problem, they refuse to pay.

Many CCs cover the same things with similar conditions at no charge including, effective recently, my Chase Amtrak card.

 

[mjaynes288]

If you are worried about the preexisting conditions exclusions shop around. There are policies that will waive it if you insure your trip in the full amount within 14 or 21 days of booking or first payment. If the cost of the trip goes up you have to add value to the policy. I have bought travel insurance incase of out of country medical treatment and/or evacuation. A policy is totally useless if it does not cover preexisting conditions.

I use Squaremouth to find travel insurance. I read the plain English summary. Then I read the entire contract. There are always interesting things in there. Know what you are buying.

 

[Guest]

So if I see my doctor for an issue, even if it turns out to be a non-problem or if it is a checkup (with good results) and then suddenly have an unexpected but "related" problem, they refuse to pay.

I don't believe that is true. The doctor would have had to noted in his/hers records that they found a serious medical problem during the "good" checkup.

Again, as in the one true case I know of, the person had terminal cancer, later died of that cancer, and the family was subsequently denied a claim for the non-refundable travel costs of the trip they never took. The insurance company was not being sneaky or unreasonable. The terminal cancer was indeed a pre-existing condition at the time of booking the trip.

Many CCs cover the same things with similar conditions at no charge including, effective recently, my Chase Amtrak card.

Now there is a good example of exclusions.

 

[cargo13]

Our travel insurance provider CSA changed names to GENERALI and they have additional services for travelers--identity theft protection for 6 months after departure of your trip & a Teladoc service for connecting to a physician over their app. We used both on a train trip through Canada.

www.generalitravelinsurance.com

Someone spoofed our credit card. And I got a skin infection on my hand. GENERALI solved both problems with their coverages. I would buy again but these could be edge cases.

 

[neroden]

FWIW "common carrier" is a very old legal definition which means they'll take anyone. The alternative is only taking members of a particular club, employes of a particular company, etc.

 

[Skyline]

I've never seen the point of travel insurance. (Health insurance for foreign travel is another matter.) ALWAYS get refundable tickets.

Agree on foreign health insurance. I recently spent 10 days in Canada (including 4+ days on The Canadian), and though I have good health insurance in the US (Medicare plus supplement), it is basically useless in Canada. I was able to purchase a 10-day policy good in Canada for about $55, and it seemed to cover everything with no deductible and a high ceiling. Thankfully I didn't need to use it, but one major health incident that I'd have to pay for out-of-pocket could have wiped out my retirement.

 

[Skyline]

FWIW "common carrier" is a very old legal definition which means they'll take anyone. The alternative is only taking members of a particular club, employes of a particular company, etc.

Not only will they take anyone, they have to.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Sorry, I'm with the insurance company on this one, no matter how sad of a story this guys tells. Insurance is suppose to cover the unexpected. In this case, it wasn't all that unexpected. Well, it was unexpected to the insurance company because the guy just happened to forget to mention it when he took out a policy that covers (amongst other things) passengers who can't take a trip due to a major injury or death.

Travel insurance does cover truly legitimate claims.

I have to agree with you.

Plus, getting even with the insurance company by throwing a temper tantrum all over the 'net (including right here), isn't going to change the facts either.

 

[dogbert617]

I also have wondered about Amtrak being considered a common carrier. When I was planning a cruise and return from Seattle via Amtrak, I called the insurance company and asked that question. The lady hemmed and hawed and without conviction said yes, Amtrak is considered a common carrier. I was uneasy about it, but fortunately, there was no reason to file a claim.

Be careful of any restrictions. I believe you have to arrive the day before the cruise ship departure (no more, no less), or the insurance doesn't cover a missed connection.

Wow, that's really ridiculous. For cruise ship insurance you really have to be in the city/town the cruise is departing from, one day before? That's a silly as crap requirement, for insurance. But I'll admit I'm not as knowledgeable on insurance related things, as others probably are. I wonder if Allianz(sp?) has such a requirement, if you're doing the reverse(cruise ship to connecting to Amtrak in Seattle)?

Anyway, I don't feel there's much of a point to having insurance, for Amtrak trips. But that's just me. And though I have sometimes bought non-refundable tickets if I wanted to travel cheaply on Amtrak, that one would just be best to buy a refundable ticket on Amtrak just in case they can't travel at the last minute, sans Allianz insurance.

 

[jebr]

I also have wondered about Amtrak being considered a common carrier. When I was planning a cruise and return from Seattle via Amtrak, I called the insurance company and asked that question. The lady hemmed and hawed and without conviction said yes, Amtrak is considered a common carrier. I was uneasy about it, but fortunately, there was no reason to file a claim.

Be careful of any restrictions. I believe you have to arrive the day before the cruise ship departure (no more, no less), or the insurance doesn't cover a missed connection.

Wow, that's really ridiculous. For cruise ship insurance you really have to be in the city/town the cruise is departing from, one day before? That's a silly as crap requirement, for insurance. But I'll admit I'm not as knowledgeable on insurance related things, as others probably are. I wonder if Allianz(sp?) has such a requirement, if you're doing the reverse(cruise ship to connecting to Amtrak in Seattle)?

Anyway, I don't feel there's much of a point to having insurance, for Amtrak trips. But that's just me. And though I have sometimes bought non-refundable tickets if I wanted to travel cheaply on Amtrak, that one would just be best to buy a refundable ticket on Amtrak just in case they can't travel at the last minute, sans Allianz insurance.

I imagine that particular restriction is mainly to help reduce the chance of a misconnect creating a very expensive payout. If a misconnect or significant delay causes a hotel room to be missed for a night, that likely would be, at most, a couple hundred dollars. A cruise is often over a thousand dollars.

That being said, the normal policy I've seen for a misconnect to another form of transportation requires 12 hours between the two, with some generous policies offering a 6 hour minimum. (That's what I was finding when I was looking for coverage for my Canadian trip, anyways, when I had a same-evening departure out of YVR.) Even with a 6-hour minimum, you'd still be looking at arriving at 9 AM if the boat leaves at 3 PM. (I'm not sure how common it is to have a late evening departure, but from what I've seen/heard is that it's typically an afternoon departure.) A 12-hour minimum would basically require arriving on a red-eye flight to be eligible. I'd guess that, in that case, they'd just write in that you have to be in "the day before" a cruise to ensure there's less confusion and to allow a full overnight in case something goes haywire.

 

[dogbert617]

I also have wondered about Amtrak being considered a common carrier. When I was planning a cruise and return from Seattle via Amtrak, I called the insurance company and asked that question. The lady hemmed and hawed and without conviction said yes, Amtrak is considered a common carrier. I was uneasy about it, but fortunately, there was no reason to file a claim.

Be careful of any restrictions. I believe you have to arrive the day before the cruise ship departure (no more, no less), or the insurance doesn't cover a missed connection.

Wow, that's really ridiculous. For cruise ship insurance you really have to be in the city/town the cruise is departing from, one day before? That's a silly as crap requirement, for insurance. But I'll admit I'm not as knowledgeable on insurance related things, as others probably are. I wonder if Allianz(sp?) has such a requirement, if you're doing the reverse(cruise ship to connecting to Amtrak in Seattle)?

Anyway, I don't feel there's much of a point to having insurance, for Amtrak trips. But that's just me. And though I have sometimes bought non-refundable tickets if I wanted to travel cheaply on Amtrak, that one would just be best to buy a refundable ticket on Amtrak just in case they can't travel at the last minute, sans Allianz insurance.

I imagine that particular restriction is mainly to help reduce the chance of a misconnect creating a very expensive payout. If a misconnect or significant delay causes a hotel room to be missed for a night, that likely would be, at most, a couple hundred dollars. A cruise is often over a thousand dollars.

That being said, the normal policy I've seen for a misconnect to another form of transportation requires 12 hours between the two, with some generous policies offering a 6 hour minimum. (That's what I was finding when I was looking for coverage for my Canadian trip, anyways, when I had a same-evening departure out of YVR.) Even with a 6-hour minimum, you'd still be looking at arriving at 9 AM if the boat leaves at 3 PM. (I'm not sure how common it is to have a late evening departure, but from what I've seen/heard is that it's typically an afternoon departure.) A 12-hour minimum would basically require arriving on a red-eye flight to be eligible. I'd guess that, in that case, they'd just write in that you have to be in "the day before" a cruise to ensure there's less confusion and to allow a full overnight in case something goes haywire.

Thanks for explaining all this. So I see the norm to expect for such insurance with connections to another form of transportation is 12 hours, and sometimes if you're lucky 6 hours? Is there a way the insurance company verifies that you made it to this city(i.e. Seattle, or wherever else the cruise is departing from) by the usual 6 or 12 hour limit, so that your insurance remains valid in case the cruise ship you've booked cancels at the last minute? Since I could see getting insurance for that, since those are usually thousands of dollars to book.

 

[jebr]

In my experience, it's based on the ticketed times for the common carrier you're taking, not the time you actually arrive. This is because part of the insurance is in case your common carrier trip is delayed to such an extent that you miss your onward transportation/journey. (Thus, if your Amtrak train was 24 hours late and you missed your cruise because of that, as long as the original ticketed transfer time met the requirements it'd be up to the insurance company to either pay for onward transportation to meet with the cruise ship, give a refund, or some mix of the two.) I don't know what they'd do if you were driving; my guess is that if you were driving it's on you to make it in time.

 

[dogbert617]

In my experience, it's based on the ticketed times for the common carrier you're taking, not the time you actually arrive. This is because part of the insurance is in case your common carrier trip is delayed to such an extent that you miss your onward transportation/journey. (Thus, if your Amtrak train was 24 hours late and you missed your cruise because of that, as long as the original ticketed transfer time met the requirements it'd be up to the insurance company to either pay for onward transportation to meet with the cruise ship, give a refund, or some mix of the two.) I don't know what they'd do if you were driving; my guess is that if you were driving it's on you to make it in time.

Oh, okay. So I see it's mainly based on ticketed times for (say, the Empire Builder west to Seattle) if you rode Amtrak, then did your boat cruise(from say, Seattle). I guess it's safe to assume that insurance would be honored(providing the insurance company doesn't have a loophole that screws you out of a claim) if you got to Seattle one day early, then your boat cruise to Alaska(or British Columbia for all I know, and you had a passport) was scheduled for one day later and by some chance(i.e. internal boat engine issue) it got cancelled at the last minute?

I understand this much better because of your posts, so thanks for explaining all of this!

 

[jebr]

I'm honestly not 100% sure how that would be covered or how that limitation would affect that sort of coverage. Typically the "one day early" is moreso to lessen losses because a plane/train/bus is late arriving than it is for the ongoing travel to be cancelled. If it was an engine failure, though, I'd expect the cruise line to offer compensation, with any travel insurance likely being secondary. If the question is whether travel insurance would pay for the sunk cost of the tickets to get to Seattle (or wherever) when onward travel (or the purpose for the trip) is cancelled after getting to Seattle, I honestly have no idea. That'd be best answered by asking the insurance company in writing of some sort (though even then they may find some exclusion to deny it.)

 

[JoeBas]

Bought travel insurance for the first time for my upcoming South Padre beach trip. Of course, I made sure it covered "work reasons" with a notarized letter, because being in the weather business August can tend to get a bit dicey.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I've purchased trip insurance from time to time, mainly when I'm booking a long haul trip far in advance, but I don't actually expect it to do anything for me when the time comes that I actually need it. It's mainly there in case things go horribly wrong and someone interrupts my story of woe to tell me I should have bought travel insurance. :lol:

 

[JoeBas]

Nice! LOL

I expect it'll do the trick for us, we're just driving, and it's just the rental cost of the beachfront condo, so it's not a PHENOMENAL sum. But for $89, given the time of the year, it's worth it just for the peace of mind.