 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hubby says I just worry too much, but I am concerned that he has simply renewed our annual Direct Line policy without considering any disclosure. The document says
| Quote: |
1. We can reject any claim which is in any way connected with a pre-existing medical condition
that:
• you suffer from; and
• you did not tell us about; and
• we did not agree cover for it in writing.
Pre-existing medical condition A medical condition:
• that you received advice, medication or treatment for from a registered doctor or specialist
during the 12 months before arranging this policy; or
• that was investigated, diagnosed or treated by a registered doctor or specialist after you
arranged this policy and before you left on your journey. |
As I read that you're supposed to tell travel insurers if you have visited a doctor for anything at all, no matter how trivial and tell them about any prescription item.
I badly broke/dislocated my ankle some 6 years ago (no, not skiing!) & it will probably never be 100% right. It resulted quite understandably in an uneven gait & ongoing discomfort to a varying degree in my ankle, hip and lower back and I take VoltarolSR as needed. My GP has recently said he suspects I have bursitis in that hip but referred me to a physio to work on the uneven muscle tone that's never really been addressed and even after a week of religiously doing one exercise I can notice a difference.
The question is am I supposed to tell the insurers? What will they do - exclude ANY claim that could possibly be linked with it? That could mean anything at all involving a fall wouldn't be covered, as any imperfection in leg musculature could lead to a degree of instability which could mean an increased risk of loss of balance making a fall more likely 
Am I too cynical? I do have a tendency that way I know!
Do you have experience of previous injury & insurers' reactions to it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'd err on the side of caution and tell insurers everything, no matter how trivial...
I very nearly had my income protection insurance claim rejected on the grounds of non-disclosure; the reason being that I had neglected to inform them at the time of application of a minor gynae condition for which I had received treatment 15 years previously. I basically had to get medical evidence to prove it was in no way related to my diagnosis of cervical cancer. Even then, they insisted had they known about this in the first place they would have imposed an exclusion for all gynaecological conditions, in which case I probably wouldn't have taken out the policy. The argument was resolved by the ombudsman and I got my money. Eventually...
My travel insurance currently excludes all medical conditions but includes cover for injuries sustained whilst travelling as long as they are not sustained as a direct result of my illnesses. As a result I'm sticking to the EU for the foreseeable future where at least an EHIC card may help me out...
Basically insurance companies will do anything they can to wriggle out of a claim. Don't give them an excuse...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I broke my elbow back in October and also got bursitis, I flew to Fuertuventura on a snorkelling holiday 5 weeks after the accident and i dedcided to disclose the injusy and paid an £9.00 to cover any problems I may have had with my elbow for that trip. £9.00 was nothinh for piece of mind.
The break has healed now but i still am having physio at the hospital. I don't think it will ever be 100% and i'll never get it completley straight again i'm told but i think i'll probably disclose it again on my ski trip in March as if i go down on it and it breaks again I don't want the expense. It'll probably cost me a tenner extra but again piece of mind. Insurers will get of anyhting they can so best way to be with them is honest.
Thats my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Butterfly, the insurers t&c seem clear to me. In your circumstances, I would tell the insurers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
worth telling them - did this with my pals back problems. insurance excluded any claims relating to the current back problems but if there was a snow related injury that injured the back he would have been covered
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Yes, you're receiving treatment for it currently, so it should be disclosed. It's not being cynical, just accurate! If in doubt, tell insurers everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I told my insurers about Mrs NBT's illness and they covered it without an increase in premium. Will let you know how I get on with claiming for the medical treatment for Mrs NBT falling ill on this last holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I thought people would agree with me on it. I am relieved to see insurers haven't charged you silly supplements though or even refused cover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I've just been through this because I realised the travel insurance we have been relying on for the last 3 years wouldn't have covered DD as she injured her ankle when she was 5 and is still having 'treatment' in the form of lifts in her shoes from a podiatrist.
I have been looking for someone who will cover it - and so far come up with the Post Office and Columbus Direct. I called the Post Office on Saturday and they have a definition of a 'stable' condition that they felt this would come under - but said ultimately the definition of 'stable' was up to me - or I could get a GP letter saying it was stable. I took their cover anyway as I just wanted to be sure we had some cover and was going to see the GP, but then I found out that Columbus Direct have a questionnaire you can fill in and one of the things was 'unidentified ankle/foot injury - not fractured' this seems to describe what daughter had perfectly, so I might change (although it is even more expensive).
I have worked out that if I change the policy next week then I will probably get two ski holidays and our main summer holidays - so I am hanging fire until then. The Post Office has 14-day cooling off period which will give me time to really read the small print when it arrives and decide whether to swap or not.
I noticed that some policies say you can't have more than one of their 'allowed' illnesses. This makes it nigh on impossible to comply - for example mild asthma and hayfever are two separate illnesses, yet most people with asthma also get hayfever - and even tonsillitis is on the list... something I would NEVER have considered was worth "disclosing".
Christine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Butterfly, you must tell them. Non disclosure of a material fact means they can avoid the policy as a whole even if the incident for which you try to claim for is not related to the non disclosure. Therefore say you cut you leg badly and require treatment, even though this is in no way related to your previously broken ankle/hip problem you insurers are still entitled to repudiate your claim . . . i'm not saying they will but they can . . . obviously they would have to know about the non disclosure in order to avoid the policy however medical reports rarely just mention the 'new' injury and often cover the history of the paitient
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
It will need to be disclosed as per the terms & conditions, but it doesn't mean they won't cover it.
My H had a spinal fracture a couple of years ago that we still declare (as we have a 3-yr type exclusion in our policy) but it just means we pay a little bit extra per year to cover it. When I say a little bit, it is something like an extra £6, so barely anything, and certainly not worth the risk of not telling them IMO and then handing them the opportunity to reject any claims.
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Snowcard (single trip) has a much more sensible medical declaration policy - 3 months of seeing hospital consultant...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, off topic!
| dlawless wrote: |
| I.....i'll never get it completley straight again i'm told .... |
A little reassurance....Mr HH broke his elbow some years ago, 20 degree bend in his arm and told it would never be completely straight again. Over time it has straightened itself with use and is now almost indistiguishable (sp?) from his unbroken arm.
On topic again....I would declare anything and everything it's the only way to be sure!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Butterfly wrote: |
| What will they do - exclude ANY claim that could possibly be linked with it? |
If you don't declare it, then "yes". If you do declare it, they will reconsider the cover and refuse, or increase the premium.
From the description you have given, there is quite a bit of extra "risk" for the insurers as a result of your pre-existing condition. Not sure if your description is necessarily the one your GP would use though.
I suggest you arm youself with a letter from your GP saying something along the lines of "Butterfly's condition is unlikely to make an accident either more likely or more serious". GPs are friendly guys, compared to insurance reps - and like to help their patients where possible. You can then declare the condition to your insurers, provide them with the letter, and hope for minimal increase in premium.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I have always found worldwide travel insurance really useful for pre-existing conditions.
They even covered my husband for skiing in Jan after a slipped disc in the previous April
Gryphea
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| snobunni wrote: |
Butterfly, you must tell them. Non disclosure of a material fact means they can avoid the policy as a whole even if the incident for which you try to claim for is not related to the non disclosure.
|
Not according to the policy wording.
They can only avoid cover for claims connected with the pre-existing condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
There was an item in the press at the weekend about a woman whose house burnt down, and was being rebuilt. Then the insurance company found she had failed to disclose a four year old conviction related to overpayment of benefits. They had taken steps to stop paying out - and the builder concerned, a small firm, was having to lay off workers etc. Of course one can't judge a case like that from the press report - the woman might have been quite a fraudster, but it does underline the need to make full disclosures.
As for the wording of the policy, the extract quoted notes that claims related to an undisclosed pre-existing condition can be rejected, but it doesn't necessarily imply that that is the only penalty for non-disclosure, does it? A lot of the general forms, and disclaimers, and stuff they tell you on the phone before you can talk to a real person, underline that non-disclosure can affect the validity of the whole policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
non-disclosure can affect the validity of the whole policy
|
Yes, insurance is a contract 'of the utmost good faith' and therefore subject, broadly speaking, to special rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
alex_heney, i was refering to the underlying principle of utmost good faith on which the policy wording is based and the standard material facts disclosure wording that will undoubtedly form part of the policies general conditions somewhere. . . the quoted section refers to the insurers rights to repudiate claims relating to a pre existing condtion but the material facts disclosure condition will still apply meaning the insurers can reserve their rights under any section of the policy for non disclosure. In reality they may not take this action and on a small claim it is highly unlikely that they will, however on a large claim much closer scrutiny will be given to the policies terms and conditions as highlighted by pam w's example above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The Post Office policy is one of the few that gives you absolute certainty on pre-existings. It gives a fairly narrow definition of things that you have to disclose, then states categorically that any other medical conditions are covered and need not be disclosed. They are not the cheapest, but at least you know where you stand and at least they don't have some silly catch-all wording which means you have to disclose any coughs, sniffles, headaches, hayfever, stubbed toes, athletes foot, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Disclose at all times. It may not cause any sort of problem. I have had, for some nearly sixteen years, an unusual (but happily stable) condition called chronic multichoroidopothy. For practical purposes it means I have a missing central strip of vision in my left eye. My vision is completely unaffected with both eyes open and is only noticeable if I shut my right eye. I occasionally have check ups and have annual sight tests (my sight is fine save for reading). I disclosed it and was promptly issued a certificate without further enquiry. Now, I have no intention of skiing with my right eye shut and am not a liability on the slopes - at least not for that reason - but it did cross my mind that an insurance company may want to know more about a skier who had an optical condition. They didn't and neither did they want more money. Peace of mind for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
The Post Office policy is one of the few that gives you absolute certainty on pre-existings.
|
I've posted elsewhere about a woman I met a couple of weeks ago who told me about an emergency dash to albertville hospital with a twisted intestine (not ski related!). She had nothing but praise for her Post Office travel policy, which had met all the charges upfront, unlike the insurers of the lad in the next bed. I'm not sure you always "get what you pay for" with insurance, but it's certainly not an item to economise on. The PO is no good for us though, as it only covers trips up to 45 days. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
I'm insured with flexicover and got insured for a pre-existing condition for and extra £10. They are pretty cheap but I have successfully claimed 3 times off them with no hassle and they were very good at arranging extra seats on the flight home etc. when I got injured on holiday so would recommend them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK - I have phoned both insurers with very different results.
NATWEST - I have the policy you get with Advantage Gold Accounts. They want to know about any prescription med you're taking and about any other treatment you are having or awaiting and whatever it is, they add it as an exclusion. The operator was quite honest - if at a claim stage they deemed that a fall was in some way due to a weaker ankle or hip on one side, then they would not cover it and they could quite easily decide that ANY fall would have been less likely without such a weakness. So, in short, a useless policy for that side of things. It still covers luggage etc and medical stuff not related to falls. Makes you wonder if having had a flu jab means they'd add a flu exclusion  .
DIRECTLINE - totally different story. I told her I'm taking anti-inflam's & getting help from a physio; she looked up "bursitis" which is what the GP currently thinks I have. She said that it's no problem, no extra premium and she will add it to the policy as covered and send me a new document. I asked if an old injury (the break 6 yrs ago) is something I need to declare and she said no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Butterfly, good result from Directline, and to some extent good from Natwest in that they were honest about the level of cover provided so you could get more suitable cover elsewhere.
Glad there is no extra premium too. I get the impression that a lot of people (not necessarily here or from this post) tend to think that declaring something automatically means it won't be covered, or that it will cost a fortune, and this is certainly not my experience.
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Butterfly, I would suggest that the conversation is confirmed in writing - particularly with regard to the ankle break.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deliaskis, some policys do exclude any declared conditions, I am currently having this dilemma as we need to renew our insurance policy in the next couple of weeks, and although huby has been passed by consultant as fit to ski in April, he won't be insured for any back or neck injury under our current policy, no ,atter how far in the future it may be, even if it is unrelated to his recent injury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Helen Beaumont, try Direct Line. That experience with Direct Line tallys with mine. After I broke my thumb ligament and had it repaired my consultant authorised me to ski; one week I still needed to be in a cast and the rest of the season I need to be wearing a removable splint. Phoned up Direct Line and "No problem, if your Doc says it's OK". I then said I acknowledged that they wouldn't be covering further injuries to the thumb, and they said - "Oh no, that's still covered, given that your Doc says you're OK to ski". They then sent me a schedule listing the declared injury, and that it was covered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| lynseyf wrote: |
| I'm insured with flexicover and got insured for a pre-existing condition for and extra £10. They are pretty cheap but I have successfully claimed 3 times off them with no hassle and they were very good at arranging extra seats on the flight home etc. when I got injured on holiday so would recommend them. |
We've been with Flexicover for the last 2 years - great cover at a really low price, but the small print in our stuff said they wouldn't cover pre-existing and I am fairly certain that when I went to renew the website I was buying it through implied you couldn't add to it.
Will check again, because if it is only £10 extra then it is way cheaper than the Post Office one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Helen Beaumont, what GrahamN says is right, directline have a slightly different underwriting perspective from most insurers rather than basing the medical cover on a standard accident and illness wording on some of their products use an adapted permanent health insurance as a base therefore pre-existing conditions are considered differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Helen Beaumont, I know it's not the same injury, but my OH had two fractured vertebrae on one ski trip, and once he was declared fit to ski Dogtag covered it for just a small supplement.
As I said I know it's not the same injury, but it might be worth shopping around.
Of course in my post above I didn't mean to imply that people could always get cover with pre-existing conditions, just that declaring a condition doesn't automatically mean it won't be covered.
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Helen Beaumont, I think snowcard are prepared to cover some pre-existing - as are the SCGB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Direct don't charge me any extra for insulin controlled diabetes. They seem to be ok on standard existing conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Our insurers have generally been not too bothered about insulin-dependent diabetes, but a tad more bothered about coronorary heart disease. Still, as we get older and more decrepit we are, not doubt, a worse risk, and we should expect to have to pay for that risk. Our current annual policy (SCGB) costs not far off £200. One of these days, no doubt, I shall do something daft and get my moneys worth. Pottering into a mountain restaurant, after doing 3 blue runs and an easy red, I shall trip over someone's dog and knock my teeth out. (One coming out next Friday actually - wisdom tooth extraction. Compared to the cost of our dentistry the travel insurance is a really good buy).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
