Delayed Flight, reimbursement for expenses.

[Moopere]

Which sound pretty serious except that they appear to my interpretation to not be relevant with relation to travel delay in section 6 (above) - so, I'd still read this to mean that travel delays are covered for food and board after 6 hours and up to $2000 for a single traveller so long as these expenses are "reasonable".

Thanks to the OP for raising the question and for naming the provider. I rang them just a few minutes ago because this might apply to me during an upcoming adventure in Asia.

I laid out the scenario and got pointed at the general exclusion, then I mentioned section 6 and the CSR agreed that hotel and food costs would indeed be covered under section 6 and not excluded under the general exclusions. So, big relief for me, and hopefully some ammo for the OP to use ... however:

[edit: An unanswered question would be whether the other PAX that you mentioned who, due to this delay, then missed on-connections would be covered.

Possibly you could cancel forward connections that you knew you would miss and then be covered under cancellation?]

The missing of the on connection is definitely _not_ covered and is excluded under section 11:

11. Delays, rescheduling or cancellation
of scheduled transport services
caused by the carrier or related to the
carrier, including maintenance, repairs,
rescheduling, service faults or industrial
activity other than a strike or corporate
takeover. This exclusion does not apply
to Section 6: Travel delay (page 11),
Section 9: Special events (page 12)

If you are travelling under one ticket with a transit and something goes wrong you'd normally expect the carrier to make it right. In my case, I'm travelling under separate tickets with different carriers. If one of them lets me down, by delay or cancellation, the next carrier on the same day won't be under any obligation to refund or otherwise assist me, and TID won't cover me either. A good heads-up.

 

[Cynicor]

But the missed connection on separate tickets should be covered by Columbus I think. I don't mind reading the pds but determining outcomes for a specific event is much harder.

I'd like to see what someone else thinks about Columbus' exclusions

 

[Moopere]

Mmm. In relation to this thread:

Travel Delay and Abandonment of Trip
You are covered up to the amount stated in the Schedule
in the event that the departure of the Carrier with which
you have arranged to travel is delayed by at least 6 hours
from the time shown in the official itinerary as supplied to
you due to strike, industrial action, riot, hijack, civil unrest,
adverse weather conditions, a natural disaster in your
Country of Residence, traffic flow congestion or
mechanical breakdown.
We will pay either:
1. 25% of the amount shown in the Schedule (Travel
Delay) for the first full 6 hour delay and 25% for each
full 6 hour delay thereafter up to the total limit shown;
or
2. up to the amount stated in the Schedule
(Abandonment) for the final invoiced paid costs of the
Trip that you cannot recover from any other source if
you decide to abandon your Trip after at least 12
hours delay from the time of departure stated in the
official travel itinerary.

From Columbus. So, given that the reason for the delay in the OP was an airline created and accepted problem, ie; not a strike or somesuch, I don't think the cancelling of a flight due to crew sickness would be covered by the insurance.


Also notice this little nasty in relation to Car Hire Vehicle Excess Waiver:

any amount you are liable to pay rising from your
acceptance of an additional excess to reduce the hire
fee.

Which in Australia at least makes the excess insurance worthless. If you accept the standard excess on most hire vehicles then you get a cheaper day rate .... and it seems columbus won't cover you. If you buy excess reduction from the car hire place then you don't need insurance against the excess (!!).

 

[dajop]

This thread should be compulsory reading for everyone. For way too long I've seen people prescribe travel insurance as cure to all evils. But it is not and never has been, if you have a weather delay it is OK. But most policies are not going to cover you for a missed 8 hr connection, because that Jetstar aircraft you were supposed to be on went unservicable. I'm happy to take out travel insurance only with medical/accident/etc cover, and forget the rest.

 

[serfty]

...

Also notice this little nasty in relation to Car Hire Vehicle Excess Waiver:

any amount you are liable to pay rising from your
acceptance of an additional excess to reduce the hire
fee.

Which in Australia at least makes the excess insurance worthless. If you accept the standard excess on most hire vehicles then you get a cheaper day rate .... and it seems columbus won't cover you. If you buy excess reduction from the car hire place then you don't need insurance against the excess (!!).

I am thinking you have misinterpreted that clause.

See here from the policy outline page (pop up when clicking the i):

Rental Vehicle Excess Waiver
An excess you are required to pay in the event of damage to a rental
vehicle due to a motor vehicle accident whilst you are the driver, or
where the vehicle suffers loss or damage as a result of malicious
damage or theft.

Now look at the full .pdf clause:

SECTION 12
Rental Vehicle Excess Waiver
You are covered up to the amount stated in the Schedule
for reimbursement of a rental vehicle insurance excess in
the event you rent a vehicle from a licensed rental agency
during your Trip, you are the driver, and that hired vehicle
1. is involved in a motor vehicle accident; or
2. suffers loss or damage as a result of malicious damage
or theft.
We will only pay under this Section if you have complied
with the terms and conditions of the rental hire vehicle
contract and if a valid collision damage insurance is in
force on the vehicle.
You are NOT covered for
a. any claim excluded under the General Exclusions of
this policy.
b. any amount you are liable to pay rising from your
acceptance of an additional excess to reduce the hire
fee.

Section 12.2.b relates specifically the 'optional' excess reduction fees that rental car companies may offer (e.g.) to reduce the excess on an insurance from, say $3500 to $500. Such is typically charged at a daily rate and simply means Columbus' underwrite won't reimburse the renter for any such payment.

 

[eastwest101]

I laid out the scenario and got pointed at the general exclusion, then I mentioned section 6 and the CSR agreed that hotel and food costs would indeed be covered under section 6 and not excluded under the general exclusions. So, big relief for me, and hopefully some ammo for the OP to use ... however:

Could that have something to do with them trying to sell you insurance? Insurable events can become exclusions once people try to make a claim. One salespersons insurable event is an exclusion as far as the claims team are concerned...

If you are travelling under one ticket with a transit and something goes wrong you'd normally expect the carrier to make it right. In my case, I'm travelling under separate tickets with different carriers. If one of them lets me down, by delay or cancellation, the next carrier on the same day won't be under any obligation to refund or otherwise assist me, and TID won't cover me either. A good heads-up.

I agree with dajop - should be compulsory reading.

 

[Moopere]

I am thinking you have misinterpreted that clause.

See here from the policy outline page (pop up when clicking the i):Now look at the full .pdf clause:Section 12.2.b relates specifically the 'optional' excess reduction fees that rental car companies may offer (e.g.) to reduce the excess on an insurance from, say $3500 to $500. Such is typically charged at a daily rate and simply means Columbus' underwrite won't reimburse the renter for any such payment.

I've really tried to read it this way. But I'm struggling with this:

b. any amount you are liable to pay rising from your
acceptance of an additional excess to reduce the hire
fee.

I'm probably misunderstanding the way the hire invoices are constructed and that relationship with the wording in this clause.

If I hire a car for $50/day and add excess reduction, it might cost me $80 / day, so to not accept the excess reduction is to reduce my per day cost. I read that mean that by not accepting the excess reduction cost I am going to "reduce the hire fee".

However, am I looking at this incorrectly do you think? The 'hire' component is remaining fixed at $50/d, but the potential to reduce the excess liability is just that, an additional and does not represent a per day reduction in the hire fee.... ???

 

[Moopere]

Could that have something to do with them trying to sell you insurance?

Well, possibly, though I did make it clear on the call that I already hold an annual multi trip with them.

Insurable events can become exclusions once people try to make a claim. One salespersons insurable event is an exclusion as far as the claims team are concerned...

Oh yes, indeed. I firmly believe that verbal reassurance is only worth the paper its written on (heh).

As with any contract, at the end of the day, it can come to the point where you have to test your assertions in court, both as the provider and consumer of services. How often does one see this devolve into an argument about the meaning of words? Pretty often.

I guess before that though we have to rely upon the fairly sloppy measure of what a reasonable person might understand a clause to mean. "tricky" type behaviour by companies doesn't all that often stand up if someone is prepared to take it to adjudication.

 

[serfty]

...

If I hire a car for $50/day and add excess reduction, it might cost me $80 / day, so to not accept the excess reduction is to reduce my per day cost. I read that mean that by not accepting the excess reduction cost I am going to "reduce the hire fee".

However, am I looking at this incorrectly do you think? The 'hire' component is remaining fixed at $50/d, but the potential to reduce the excess liability is just that, an additional and does not represent a per day reduction in the hire fee.... ???

I firmly believe it is neither now I see it closer. With some insurances, you can pay a lower premium to have a higher excess - I have yet to come across such with vehicle rentals.

FWIW, about two months ago, I did look very closely at this for my Daughter who was renting a vehicle in Cairns for a week.

In the end it was the pop up as described that had me reason as I posted.

i.e. on the "Cover and Price" page, beside "Rental Vehicle Excess Waiver", there is an

symbol.

Click this and a paragraph appears:

Rental Vehicle Excess Waiver
An excess you are required to pay in the event of damage to a rental
vehicle due to a motor vehicle accident whilst you are the driver, or
where the vehicle suffers loss or damage as a result of malicious
damage or theft.

Since this pop up has no *'s or other indications there may be variance or further condition, this cover has to be as it is represented in the pop-up, no more, not less.

 

[jveevers]

As the OP, I can report that I dont see the reimbursement of my costs as an Insurance Co. problem.
I still feel that VA should reimburse or compensate.

I lodged a "feedback" claim over a week ago now, no response.
I called VA to see how claim was proceeding. "We will get back to you". Nothing.............
I hope this forum is monitered by VA as in my opinion, they are looking very ordinary.

 

[jveevers]

In regard to "Rental Vehicle Excess Waiver" cover. I hired a vehicle in Reunion which had an excess of $2600-, I declined to pay extra on the rental to reduce this excess.
My thinking was - If I have an major accident or incident and the repair cost is say $10,000- then I am required to just pay the excess being $2600- which I then submit as an Insurance Claim. I didnt see the point of paying more rental (costing me more $$ ) to reduce the excess and thereby reduce possible liability of Insurance Co. If I had a minor accident costing say $400- then I pay the $400- and claim insurance Co.
As it turned out, i had a minor incident, cost $900-in total, which I paid, then I claimed, they reimbursed me.
"
Conclusion, if you have Travel Insurance which includes "Rental Vehicle Excess Waiver Cover", most do, some basic covers dont.
Why would anyone opt to pay extra rental to reduce the excess ?

 

[Moopere]

As it turned out, i had a minor incident, cost $900-in total, which I paid, then I claimed, they reimbursed me.

Was this claim with TID though? I think there excess policy is pretty straightforward.

Conclusion, if you have Travel Insurance which includes "Rental Vehicle Excess Waiver Cover", most do, some basic covers dont.
Why would anyone opt to pay extra rental to reduce the excess ?

Indeed. Its one of the major reasons why I just stumped up for an annual multi rather than continually trying to decipher different card insurances against the specific circumstances of my trips, both domestic and international. Just so long as the Excess Waiver cover is what you think it is, and doesn't have a bunch of exclusions and caveats. Columbus, written about above, seems quite unclear in this regard, to my reading, and I'd be uncomfortable relying upon it given the wording. Probably, they'd just pay, but I like known. unambiguous quantities where reasonably possible.

 

[jveevers]

Had a day off work so thought would call VA again as still no contact back from them. Following up my "feedback" claim put in 10 days ago.
Got the call centre as usual, still refusing to transfer me to Aus person, usual run around, in the end they feined " sorry cannot hear you" and hung up.
Refused to give me a letter to submit with claim for expenses to TID. TID have now admitted that I was given the wrong info. from the Lloyds guy and in fact this claim is not "excluded", however I need a letter from VA to verify my claim for delays. Catch 22.
I have spent hours on this, I dont usually give up but brow beaten by VA into submission.
VA, if you are listening, Res. # P5FN3C, "feedback" # 4836197466.

 

[Moopere]

I have spent hours on this, I dont usually give up but brow beaten by VA into submission.
VA, if you are listening, Res. # P5FN3C, "feedback" # 4836197466.

Its not good enough thats for sure. I'd PM the VA rep here on AFF. Good chance they will see this post, but a PM should make it unavoidable.

Also, not sure of the main web sites contact email address, but I have this one: [email protected] from some correspondence I had with the team earlier in the year.

Otherwise, before giving up, how about one of these guys?

<redacted> Chief Executive Officer

<redacted> Chief Operating Officer

<redacted> Chief Customer Officer


Good luck, most interested in how you get on.

 

[eastwest101]

... TID have now admitted that I was given the wrong info. from the Lloyds guy and in fact this claim is not "excluded", however I need a letter from VA to verify my claim for delays. Catch 22.

Aah the joys of outsourcing. Hope you eventually get your written confirmation from VA - sounds like it will be a test of patience.

 

[Cynicor]

Had a day off work so thought would call VA again as still no contact back from them. Following up my "feedback" claim put in 10 days ago.
Got the call centre as usual, still refusing to transfer me to Aus person, usual run around, in the end they feined " sorry cannot hear you" and hung up.
Refused to give me a letter to submit with claim for expenses to TID. TID have now admitted that I was given the wrong info. from the Lloyds guy and in fact this claim is not "excluded", however I need a letter from VA to verify my claim for delays. Catch 22.
I have spent hours on this, I dont usually give up but brow beaten by VA into submission.
VA, if you are listening, Res. # P5FN3C, "feedback" # 4836197466.

Sorry to hear they are still giving you the run-around. I suggest twitter if the rep on here doesn't respond promptly. Haven't seen them around in a while.

At least it does confirm what we suspected- that the claim is allowed on TID and you are covered by them at least.

Good luck!

 

[mannej]

There should be no reason at all as to why they have refused to provide that confirmation in writing that your service was delayed

 

[jveevers]

Thanks Moopere for the contacts.

As a last ditch effort i will send email with link to this blog.

If I get some satisfaction i will post as such. Cheers..

 

[obrienja]

In the past when I had delays that needed to compensation (admittedly with Amex when their Platinum Charge insurance was worth the paper the policy was printed on) I've used flightstats or similar to demonstrate that the flights were delayed. Good luck getting a letter from Virgin though.

 

[jveevers]

There should be no reason at all as to why they have refused to provide that confirmation in writing that your service was delayed

No but dont forget that I cannot get past the OS Call centre. They do not seem to be able to make any decisions or commitments on behalf of VA. They cannot transfer callers to an Australian operative.(or so they say).
And when you demand to speak to a Supervisor they put you on hold on pretext of waiting for a Supervisor and then when they come back they say that they cannot hear you and hang up. This has happened exactly the same, twice. In a nutshell, its impossible to get to someone who can agree to send a letter.

Conversation prior to hang-up:-
Them-- "please wait whilst i get a Supervisor"
Me "OK"
Them "are you there sir?"
Me "Yes"
Them "are you there Sir"
Me "Yes"
Them " I Cannot hear you"
Me " I am here"
Them "I cannot hear you"
Me " I am here, dont tell me you cannot hear me like you did last time"
Them "I cannot hear you"
Them - Hang up

Funny how no matter how long I talk for (whether it be 1 word or a 50 words), they wait until I am finished and then say "I cannot hear you"