Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: fco.gov.uk & insurance

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    215

    Default Insurance

    Wold Expeditions recommend Mike Henry Travel Insurance, it seems pretty comprehensive. They are a NZ based company I believe.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,851

    Default insurance

    Boulia,
    I have used QBE Insurance, recommeded to me by Thor Travel in Adelaide.
    They have been pretty good, and send me the cheque less than two weeks after sending in the claim, without any other hassles. Which was a pleasant surprise, havind dealt with various insuraces (not necessarily travel...) over the years. I did have all the receipts and paperwork, including the a hospital assessment of my son as soon as we landed in Pokhara. Quite a good private hospital there, a teaching hospital funded by India. I was pleasently surprised by the quality of the whole setup, including the doctors and nurses. Some of them were very good looking. Especially the nurses.

    Regarding Oli's problem, I believe one needs to call and speak to the insurer directly. Not the travel agent. They may not cover flight changes due to political upheaval, but may will most probably still cover emergency medical evacuations.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    9

    Default Insurance

    An update - have tried just about every travel insurance provider in the UK, several Private Client brokers and the British Insurance Brokers Asscn - and not one company would insure me for travel to Nepal (or to any other country against FCO advice).

    However, insurance policies underwritten by UK Insurance and sold by the Royal Bank of Scotland and Tesco, amongst others, state in the policy schedule 'The policy excludes travel to destinations where the FCO has advised against "all travel".' It is clear that the FCO maintains one list advising against 'all travel' and a second, on which Nepal current appears, of advising against 'all but essential travel'. I reckon that travel to Nepal is therefore covered, because the FCO has not advised against 'all travel' there.

    Well, if it comes to it, that's what I would argue with the regulators if any claim proved sticky!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Plyn,
    I'm not sure I understand what your saying is not covered. My last policy (US) provided coverage against sickness, travel interruptions and such (normal type travel coverage) even if the country was on the restricted travel list with our state dept (which Nepal was). My only real exposure was if I was hurt in the civil conflict or I had to make alternate travel plans because of the civil disruptions. As I read your post I get the sense that there is no coverage whatsoever and that would seem unfair particularly in Nepal where the conflict is not directed at the tourist.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    871

    Default insurance small print

    Plyn, James (et al)

    Yes, two equally valid and correct points here. I understand the "follow FCO advice" clauses are fairly standard in the UK, as is the "no cover for acts of war or terrorism". And with the ambiguity of wording in the FCO advice in isn't really clear if we are covered or not, and asking the insurers they are bound to say "no" and their agents will "advise against"....

    A contract lawyer might be able to make a good argument that our insurance cover is valid, but I'd rather not have to try arguing that point from a hospital bed in Kathmandu.

    I am due to fly in a little over three weeks, but it'll probably be more than two weeks before I know if or where I'm going. Ho hum... just have to wait and see what happens.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    9

    Default

    James things are perhaps a little different in the UK - my usual annual policy states:

    'You will not be covered if you choose to travel to a specific area against the advice issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.'

    This would normally be taken to mean the insurance is not valid when travelling to countries that the FCO has advised against all, or all but essential travel to - the interpretation being that holidays are not 'essential travel'. So in this case, yes, there would be no cover. Also excluded are any claims resulting as:

    'any consequence whether direct or indirect of war, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities (whether war be declared or not), any acts of terrorism, civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, blockade, military or usurped power;' i.e. no cover if caught up in a mob in Ktm.

    The newest insurance I got states that the insurance is not valid for travel to countries to which the FCO has advised against all travel -

    'The policy excludes travel to destinations where the FCO has advised against "all travel".

    So I would interpret this that the insurance is valid for travel to Nepal, for which the FCO has not advised against 'all travel'. If it came to a claim and it was disputed all one can do is pay up front and claim back through the regulator (which I have done successfully in the past, but that's another story!). So yes, Oli's right in that it is a grey area...

    Well I'm off there for a month this afternoon - and am not worried (but then again I live in a rough part of South London, where the risks are perhaps significantly worse) - I arrived last year on the evening of 31st Jan, and didn't realise a coup had happened until I found I couldn't email anyone the next morning to tell them I had arrived...and then saw the news on a sat-tv. So I don't anticipate any problems and am more than happy to go over and continue to support the many friends I have over there.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,851

    Default yakshaver

    If I understand Plyn correctly, the insurance is valid for Nepal, but not if the claim is due to war etc.
    Thinking that claims in Nepal are 99% due to some medical issue, usually evacuation from the mountin, what is the real level of risk of a claim not to be paid?
    Unless the insurance won't touch a destination full stop, chance for claiming due to some war or such in Nepal are minimal. My concern would be if they cover medical evacuation.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    871

    Default Semantics

    Quite right Yakshaver - this is the crux of the point we have been debating. Unfortunately your take on the contract is a moot point, it's what the insurers read in the small print that is critical.

    Note that the FCO also say "The majority of problems encountered by British tourists in Nepal are trekking accidents" - implying that the current risk in Nepal is roughly the same as it has always been. But regardless of this the clause that says "We advise against all but essential travel to Nepal" does effectively invalidate ALL COVER for the WHOLE COUNTRY for ANY REASON. Probably.

    Good luck & safe travels to Plyn, I hope I may see you in KTM at the end of this month.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Thanks, Oli - I'll be back in Ktm on 1 March and staying at the Utse...and will be found in Sam's Bar in the evenings, curfews permitting! Might see you there...

    Bill

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    7

    Default World Nomads insurance

    Hi,

    I am travelling to Nepal in March. I checked with World Nomads insurance - they will still cover me for travel in Nepal even if there is a FCO travel advisory in place. they have standard clauses concerning disruptions to travel due to terrorism, acts of war etc, but they are in all insurance policies.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •