The travel policy that was NO help to brave Katya
WHEN 17-year-old Katya Katalinic went to Kenya with her mother and two brothers just before Christmas last year, she believed the world was her oyster. Although unsure about what she wanted to do after stepping away from school for a year, she was young, vivacious and possessed a huge appetite for life, knowledge and travel. Little did she know that weeks later she would be clinging on to life.
After spending some fabulous time with family friends in the Kenyan coastal city of Mombasa – enjoying the golden sands and the Indian Ocean – Katya didn’t want to go home with brothers Hector and Boris and mother Marsha. She felt the urge to extend her travels.
So, rather than travelling back to Midhurst in West Sussex, Katya took a flight to Cape Town in South Africa to visit yet more family friends – Marsha grew up in Africa,
moving to the UK in her teens, so she had a network of friends right across the continent. Having been covered under a family travel insurance policy while with her mother and brothers, Marsha and dad Roberto bought new travel insurance to cover Katya for the 12-day extended stay. She fell in love with Cape Town and decided she would stay longer and enrol on a five-day yachting stewardess course.
Again, her parents arranged new cover – something they did once more when Katya said she would spend two more weeks in Cape Town before coming home. What the divorced parents had no idea of is that the three policies they had bought for Katya while she was travelling
alone were worthless. They were invalid from day one because of a clause common to all standard travel policies – which stipulates that anyone named on a policy must travel from and to the UK.
Katya was in mid-travel, so technically she was not travelling from the UK, although she had started her journey there. In 99 per cent of cases, this would have made no difference. But in Katya’s case, it had massive financial implications – for Marsha, a freelance chef, and Roberto, an IT engineer.
Five days into her last two weeks in South Africa, and a month after celebrating her 18th birthday, Katya suffered a brain haemorrhage. She was rushed to the Netcare Christiaan Barnard Memorial Hospital in Cape Town where part of her skull was removed to relieve pressure on the brain. At one stage, it was touch and go whether she would survive.
Although the removed piece of skull has now been reattached – it was temporarily kept alive inside her stomach – Katya has lost 40 per cent of vision in her right eye. She will also probably remain on blood thinners for the rest of her life. Says
Roberto: ‘She had to learn to read and write again, but in time she will hopefully make a full recovery. We’re looking into schools that can help her make a fresh start.’
Yet the financial implications of Katya’s dice with death have dented the finances of Marsha and Roberto. Axa Partners, the travel insurer at the time of Katya’s brain haemorrhage, has refused to pay any of the hospital bills – in excess of £100,000 – racked up while she was receiving
treatment in Cape Town. As it told me last week: ‘We are unable to settle her claim as her policy was purchased when she was already on her trip, which unfortunately meant her cover was not valid.’
Axa will not shift its position despite pressure from both myself and Roberto – who has now complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service. It also refused to reveal how many customers fall foul of this condition as a result of extending their overseas travel and requiring new cover.
It’s hard not to be sympathetic towards Marsha and Roberto. In buying new policies for Katya, they thought they were acting responsibly. Their mistake, a genuine one, was not to go through the policy small print which clearly states travel must begin and end in the UK. The Association of British Insurers says the policy condition they fell foul of is a result of ‘regulatory requirements’, the way cover is priced (taking into account the risk of cancellation pre-trip through to
in-trip risks such as baggage loss or the need for medical cover) and anti-fraud measures.
It adds: ‘Purchasing cover after a trip has started carries a higher probability that there is an awareness of a reason to claim already.’
Yet it also said some specialist firms DO offer ‘already travelling insurance’ – cover that if bought by Marsha and Roberto would have paid Katya’s medical bills.
These policies are designed for people who are already travelling (the Katyas of this world), the only requirement being that the policyholder is a UK resident. But they are not well known and unavailable on mainstream comparison websites which is where most people (including Marsha and Roberto) buy travel insurance.
At the very minimum, the ABI and comparison websites should be raising consumer awareness of such cover – to ensure that others don’t find themselves in the same financial mire that the Katalinic family are now in.