Change in Platinum Card Travel Insurance?

[Stephen65]

Thanks for those.

According to those T&Cs you are only covered for Transport Accident and Travel Insurance cover if you:

pay the full fare for a Trip on the American Express Platinum Card Account or with American Express Membership Reward points

"full fare" is not defined so immediately there is an issue about whether government taxes etc form part of the "full fare" or not. Trip is defined to be a Domestic Trip or an International Trip:

for which the full fare has been charged to an American Express Platinum Card Account (or paid for with equivalent American Express Membership Rewards points).

Because full fare is not defined then there is again ambiguity - e.g. if I fly to CDG and catch the train to London do I have to pay for the airfare + train travel on the card to be covered or just the airfare? If I fly to anywhere and catch a taxi am I covered if I do not pay the taxi fare by Amex card? Or maybe I am only covered for the Trip that ends at the destination airport?

I note also that on these T&Cs there is no coverage at all if you pay for the fare with points converted from Amex MR points e.g. QFF points.

This illustrates the problem that as soon as you depart from full coverage for all trips no matter how paid you create uncertainty and ambiguity as to whether you are covered or not. Once you are uncertain about coverage the value of the insurance drops to near zero. The only way under these T&Cs to be reasonably confident of cover is to pay for all your transportation costs by Amex card or MR points.

PS: what moa999 said as well

 

[turtlemichael]

Its a definition with so many holes that they could drive a Mack truck through.

On a quick reading, I agree. It would be a lawyer's picnic and contains so many things that are illogical or debatable or unclear. However, everyone needs relative certainty and clarity before committing to insurance.

 

[exp1k]

Worst interpretation of "full fare" would be that only tickets in booking classes Y and B are covered.
Best interpretation: If my fare is $0 because it is an award flight and I charge $0 that is 100% of the full fare to my amex card, then I would be covered.

 

[DKC]

As many I find this change in insurance cover hugely disappointing. Previously all supplementary card holders automatically have travel insurance cover as well. So if you include yourself and 4 supps then 5 people are covered. Now it's just yourself, spouse and dependent children.

I will certainly call my contact in the cancellation department to let him know that I'm not happy!

So is the Charge card policy now any better than the Reserve card or the Citi Plat/signature cards?

 

[exp1k]

Are the new Centurion Insurance T+Cs online yet? Has anyone received them?

 

[simongr]

Got the letter today (hadn't seen this thread due to other stuff over the past few days). Initial reaction was to cancel the card but I think a little cooler head might prevail and I will actually do the "sums" of what I get from the card vs. what I pay.

The points awards is the big question for me - I earn about the same points from travel as I do from spending so in theory if I transfer historically 600K points to QF and then in the future book 600K of awards am I permanently covered for having used points for the award?

Someone raised the question about paying for the "entire trip" on other cards - I think for a lot of us the trip is paid for by a combination of points and cash so the whole trip isn't put on the cards.

 

[Stephen65]

I rang Amex with some queries about the T&Cs so I was put through to ACE. I posed about half a dozen scenarios where the T&Cs were unclear and asked whether I would be covered or not.

Apparently it is their intention that if you pay for a trip using FF points converted from MR points then you are covered but unfortunately the T&Cs do not say this. It's also their intention that whether you paid for a trip using FF points converted from MR points is to be tested by whether you (a) converted enough FF points from MR points in the past to cover the fare and (b) are not deemed to have used up those converted FF points on an earlier Trip. Again the T&Cs do not say any of this. When I expressed some concern about relying on a policy where I am not covered by the T&Cs but instead an unexpressed intention to cover I was told that the T&Cs had been negotiated with Amex and were final. I asked how I should prove (a) and (b) and was told I should take my Amex and FF account statements with me overseas.

The rep was hopelessly confused as to what the "full fare" was and how it interacted with the definitions of a Trip. He couldn't tell me whether the full fare including government charges and taxes that are levied on me but collected by the airline or not. Also according to him if say I travelled Melbourne to London using a combination of aircraft, train and taxi then I would need to pay for all three using an Amex card and if any of them did not take Amex that was simply bad luck and I would not have paid the full fare for my Trip by card. When I pointed out the unfairness of this i.e. I would not be covered at all because say the taxi that took me the last mile didn't take Amex he said instead that I would be covered for those parts of the Trip where I did pay using Amex. I pointed out that the T&Cs don't say this because they define Trip as a single Trip starting and finishing at my residence and do not contemplate cover for parts of Trips or that a single journey could consist of some covered Trips and some non-covered Trips.

At the end he simply suggested I put my concerns in writing.

 

[awilcockson]

She said the reason that the change was made is that all other Platinum cards (issued by banks) do not offer travel insurance as comprehensive as the Plat Charge card prior to the change. On the other hand, she agreed that no other Platinum card has a comparable annual fee in the market.

I was ready to post an angry reply to your first sentence, until I read the second.

Actually screw it, I'm still angry. The fact that they charge $900 is exactly why they shouldn't be making such a detrimental change to the insurance.

 

[Stephen65]

Other banks cards may not have offered as good a coverage as the old plat charge policy but they certainly offer better and more certain coverage than the new one.

For example the CBA Diamond policy covers you if you prepay at least $950 of your trip expenses, which is defined widely, using the card. So provided I prepay at least $950 of say hotel expenses on the card then I am covered for the entire trip no matter how I pay for the remaining expenses including airfares. I don't need to worry about what full fare means, whether I should be paying every taxi fare by Amex and whether my trip is in fact a series of trips some of which are covered and some are not.

 

[awilcockson]

I
The rep was hopelessly confused as to what the "full fare" was and how it interacted with the definitions of a Trip. He couldn't tell me whether the full fare including government charges and taxes that are levied on me but collected by the airline or not. Also according to him if say I travelled Melbourne to London using a combination of aircraft, train and taxi then I would need to pay for all three using an Amex card and if any of them did not take Amex that was simply bad luck and I would not have paid the full fare for my Trip by card. When I pointed out the unfairness of this i.e. I would not be covered at all because say the taxi that took me the last mile didn't take Amex he said instead that I would be covered for those parts of the Trip where I did pay using Amex. I pointed out that the T&Cs don't say this because they define Trip as a single Trip starting and finishing at my residence and do not contemplate cover for parts of Trips or that a single journey could consist of some covered Trips and some non-covered Trips.

Oh dear.

Does anyone else get the feeling that this idea was put together at the executive Christmas party .... well after the bar tab had been consumed?

 

[Ricardo]

Oh dear.

Does anyone else get the feeling that this idea was put together at the executive Christmas party .... well after the bar tab had been consumed?

I think it was those funny cigarettes they were smoking after the bar tab .....

 

[Flashback]

The rep was hopelessly confused as to what the "full fare" was and how it interacted with the definitions of a Trip. He couldn't tell me whether the full fare including government charges and taxes that are levied on me but collected by the airline or not. Also according to him if say I travelled Melbourne to London using a combination of aircraft, train and taxi then I would need to pay for all three using an Amex card and if any of them did not take Amex that was simply bad luck and I would not have paid the full fare for my Trip by card. When I pointed out the unfairness of this i.e. I would not be covered at all because say the taxi that took me the last mile didn't take Amex he said instead that I would be covered for those parts of the Trip where I did pay using Amex. I pointed out that the T&Cs don't say this because they define Trip as a single Trip starting and finishing at my residence and do not contemplate cover for parts of Trips or that a single journey could consist of some covered Trips and some non-covered Trips.

That's interesting. From the discussion over here in the UK the understanding was that if AMEX is not offered as an option for payment at all, then the insurance would still apply as you have no opportunity to pay on AMEX.

 

[serfty]

Forget the funny cigarettes, I reckon the stayers had convinced the new rep. to open a tab on his/her account ... :shock:

 

[11sjw]

This is bad. Almost all of my Trips to Europe are using QFF Points. Obviously these 'free' trips won't be covered anymore. See Ya!

Hence the Qantas AMEX Card will be picked up (by yours truly) instead. It still has the "must pay with the card" part, re travel insurance. However it specifically states that it covers flights paid for with QFF points.

I'm not certain that the revised terms and conditions, now on the website, have been linked yet.

https://secure.cmax.americanexpress...Platinum/au/en/Benefits/PDF/Insurance_TCs.pdf

Check here The Platinum Card | American Express Australia

 

[Deleted member]

Just called AMEX and the service rep was very understanding. She said she already had a long document today with all customers' feedback, disappointment and concerns about the new insurance policies. She said that cardholders should ring them to let them know that this is not good and their senior management does take (large amount of similar) feedback seriously. She said the reason that the change was made is that all other Platinum cards (issued by banks) do not offer travel insurance as comprehensive as the Plat Charge card prior to the change. On the other hand, she agreed that no other Platinum card has a comparable annual fee in the market.

She recommended:
1. Book & pay your next holiday in advance. So you will at least be covered for another family trip.
2. Call, write, email them your concerns. The more cardholders complains, the more likely they will do something.

Even if you have only 5 minutes, please do give them a call and express your concerns. Also please do tell other cardholders you know. Lots of people simply ignore bank letters.

So rather than capitalize on a market edge , they decide the best option is to become part of the pack!! Is mr Joyce moonlighting over at Amex?

 

[Ricardo]

So rather than capitalize on a market edge , they decide the best option is to become part of the pack!! Is mr Joyce moonlighting over at Amex?

Maybe they will close down Amex for a few days to resolve dis dispute for da good of da airline.... ops I mean card :mrgreen:

 

[sparoz]

I will be seeing my rep this weekend at a conference, so will definitely speak to him about it. The wording on the Cent website hasn't changed yet (not the T&C), whilst the Plat has. So hopefully it doesn't apply to Cent - I know someone rang, but I never believe what people tell me over the phone.

I have received promotion of the amex travel insurance for my additional card recently - so.. may be they want to try to sell more of those...

 

[beardoc]

I'm very disappointed by this. The main reason is the change in definition of Pre-Existing Medical Conditions, which doesn't seem to be mentioned previously in this thread:

The "old" definition:

Pre-Existing Medical Condition means any medical or mental condition existing prior
to the booking of Your Trip affecting You or any travelling companion without whom
Your Trip cannot be taken. This means any condition causing You pain or physical
distress or severely restricting Your normal mobility, including (but not limited to):
(a) a condition for which You are on a waiting list for hospital in-patient Treatment;
(b) a condition referred to a medical specialist or the cause of hospital in-patient
Treatment within six (6) months prior to booking of Your Trip (excluding regular
ongoing check-ups where there has been no significant change in condition);
(c) pregnancy within eight (8) weeks of the estimated date of delivery; or
(d) a condition for which a Doctor has provided a terminal prognosis.

Now Pre-Existing Medical Condition is more broad:

Pre-existing Medical Condition means:1. any past or current Medical Condition that, during the 2 years prior to You
booking any Trip has given rise to symptoms, or for which any form of treatment
or prescribed medication, medical consultation, investigation or follow-up/checkup
has been required or received; or
2. any cardiovascular or circulatory condition (eg, heart condition, hypertension,
11
blood clots, raised cholesterol, stroke, aneurysm) that has occurred at any time
prior to You booking any Trip; or
3. any pregnancy if, at the time of any Trip, is within eight (8) weeks of the
estimated date of delivery.

Previously my partner didn't have a pre-existing medical condition under the old policy - and now they do.

It might be time to go and get myself an annual travel policy instead and drop back to the Platinum Credit Card again.

 

[sparoz]

Looking at the pre-existing condition they might as well save their dollars as they would be a large portion of people who would have hypertension or raised cholesterol. Ie, if you are on blood pressure medication or any stage of your life have "raised cholesterol", then you are not covered for any heart problems under the policy. There is also no definition on hypertension or raised cholesterol - do they define them as condition requires treatment, or even just clinical hypertension and raised cholesterol?

 

[Stephen65]

Previously my partner didn't have a pre-existing medical condition under the old policy - and now they do.

Thanks for pointing that out. Likewise I didn't have a PEMC under the old policy but do under the new. I had a medical condition four years ago which was resolved at the time and has never recurred but for which I still receive occasional checkups. By reason of receiving those checkups alone it now becomes a PEMC.

Looking at the pre-existing condition they might as well save their dollars as they would be a large portion of people who would have hypertension or raised cholesterol. Ie, if you are on blood pressure medication or any stage of your life have "raised cholesterol", then you are not covered for any heart problems under the policy. There is also no definition on hypertension or raised cholesterol - do they define them as condition requires treatment, or even just clinical hypertension and raised cholesterol?

Good point. Under this new definition if you have ever had "hypertension" or "raised cholesterol" (both undefined) in your life then even if those conditions have been successfully treated you are not covered for any cardiovascular or circulatory condition whatsoever.