In­surer won’t pay for cruise ill­ness

The Daily Telegraph - Your Money - - READERS’ LETTERS -

I have a prob­lem with Al­lianz travel in­sur­ance over a claim aris­ing from a South Amer­i­can cruise. Briefly, I was di­ag­nosed with acute bron­chi­tis by the ship’s doc­tor while trav­el­ling through the Panama Canal.

On the doc­tor’s rec­om­men­da­tion, my wife and I can­celled two shore trips we had booked to take to­gether on the fol­low­ing two days. Al­lianz paid for the med­i­cal bills (mi­nus the ex­cess) and for my can­celled trips but re­fused to cover my wife’s trips on the grounds that she was not ill.

I have ar­gued that the ship’s doc­tor would have sent me to hos­pi­tal in Costa Rica, or at the very least kept me in the ship’s med­i­cal bay, had my wife not been avail­able to stay in the cabin with me dur­ing my ill­ness. That would have led to a far larger in­sur­ance claim. RH, LON­DON

The £113 for the trips you had missed out on dur­ing the short­ish time you were ill on this 11-week South Amer­i­can cruise had indeed been re­im­bursed. Also the other part of the claim had been paid.

The in­sur­ance cover had cost the two of you £1,277 and al­lowed for a min­istroke you had pre­vi­ously had, as well as for an arthritic knee. In all, the claim was for less than half of what had been paid for the in­sur­ance.

Had you had to go ashore for treat­ment, which was a very real pos­si­bil­ity as you could not be left alone, the claim would have indeed been for much more.

The pol­icy doc­u­ment does state that cover is pro­vided in the event of ex­cur­sions be­ing can­celled as a re­sult of ill­ness.

Fur­ther to my in­volve­ment Al­lianz Global As­sis­tance said: “The de­ci­sion to de­cline the part of the claim sur­round­ing Mrs H’s can­celled tours was a lit­tle harsh.

“Mr H was con­fined to his cabin and it was there­fore un­der­stand­able that his wife would have wanted to stay with him.”

It is there­fore now pay­ing the £113 for the two on­shore trips at is­sue. a billing is­sue with Bri­tish Gas? When we moved home about a year ago, we in­formed Bri­tish Gas about the move. All seemed well and we paid by di­rect debit but re­ceived pa­per bills quar­terly.

How­ever, we were then sur­prised to re­ceive two pa­per bills both ad­dressed to us at our ad­dress. One, though, was for sup­ply­ing an en­tirely dif­fer­ent prop­erty.

We called Bri­tish Gas three times to­wards the end of the year and were told the con­fu­sion was re­solved.

Four months later two pa­per bills ar­rived. The elec­tric­ity bill ap­pears to be cor­rect with no sup­ply ad­dress.

How­ever, the gas bill stated the sup­ply ad­dress again as be­ing the en­tirely dif­fer­ent one that had been cited be­fore. FE, SOUTH WALES

You are now named as joint ac­count holder with your part­ner, who had set up a new gas ac­count when he moved house.

Fol­low­ing con­tact from him it had been es­tab­lished that his gas me­ter was reg­is­tered against an­other sup­ply and ac­count on Bri­tish Gas’s sys­tem.

Only my in­volve­ment led to the in­cor­rect ex­tra gas ac­count be­ing closed and the tar­iff cho­sen orig­i­nally be­ing back­dated onto the cor­rect gas ac­count.

Your part­ner has ac­cepted a pay­ment of £60 for good­will for poor ser­vice.

Bri­tish Gas said: “We are sorry for the mix-up which meant Mr M and Mrs E re­ceived bills for two dif­fer­ent ad­dresses. This is due to a crossed me­ter sit­u­a­tion which meant their gas me­ter was reg­is­tered against an­other sup­ply on our sys­tem.”

You are de­lighted that at last the prob­lem is now sorted out.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.