DFAT Warning [Do NOT Travel overseas]

[Daver6]

InsureandGo have this as an exclusion for the travel warning. Fails to mention what happens if that warning occurs while you are there. Any thoughts?

Any claim resulting from you travelling in, to or through a country or area included on the list of countries not recommended by the Australian Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – Homepage | Smartraveller or those countries subject to an embargo from the UN Security Council or from any other international organisation to which Australia belongs, as well as events occurring in any international conflicts or interventions involving the use of force or coercion. This exclusion does not apply to Section A (Cancelling your trip before departure) if you decide to cancel or curtail your trip because a location in your planned itinerary is added or upgraded to the smarttraveller list of “Do not Travel” locations after the policy issue date and before your departure date on the policy schedule. (Please note that other exclusions apply which may affect your ability to claim).

 

[33kft]

As a non-resident Australian, who has permanent residency (or even if I had an employment pass) in Singapore, if I get COVID-19 here in Singapore that requires treatment, then the government has indicated they will cover the medical costs (but won't for visitors). As we have been away for a while, when if we were to come back to Australia (to be with our elderly mothers), as visitors, we are then liable for medical costs (or in our case, insurance would be). Many Australians living abroad probably don't realise this.

This is (like anything else I tend to encounter on such subjects) true to an extent, but written in a way that makes it seem what it is not.

If you leave Australia and are no longer an Australian Resident for tax purposes, you can access Medicare services for up to 5 years after leaving, even though you are no longer paying the Medicare levy or surcharges.

If you return to Australia, you can get your Medicare access re-instated within a day of providing the documentation they request (which is a movement record from ABF and a few other details)

This policy is to stop those who have departed Australia from being able to access all of the Medicare services on visits to Australia without paying the related fees. The Medicare system is much more all-encompassing than the Singapore system.

Singapore may cover EP and PR for COVID-19 emergency medical treatment (and I doubt that the extent of cover is any more than the admission and hospitalisation fees at most), but suggesting that this is business as usual is misleading, Singaporean PRs and Citizens fund their use of the healthcare system via the CPF Medisave program, and insurance is provided for most work pass holders whether it be S-Pass, WP or EP by their employers. EP is the only of those where it is not mandatory for the employer to provide, and this is a concern because for an EP holder who is hospitalised due to COVID-19, their emergency inpatient costs are covered but any medication or outpatient (eg specialist visits) are not and can easily rack up thousands of dollars in costs.

More details below, but as a former EP in Singapore who has been hospitalized on multiple occasions and who thankfully had Health Insurance provided by my employer to pay the rather large bills I was handed by the public hospitals (don't even get me started on the numbers I have heard from friends who had slightly complicated births at Mount Elizabeth private hospital and walked out with $50K+ bills) I would just like to point out that nothing at all is free, especially in Singapore:

Is healthcare in Singapore free for Singaporean citizens, Singaporean PR and employment pass holders?

Answer (1 of 12): Singapore is the world’s most expensive country to live for a reason. There is a local saying in Singapore “ You can die in Singapore, but you cannot afford to fall sick” However, some experts have commented that even dying is very costly , so you cannot even afford to die. How...

www.quora.com

 

[Anna]

InsureandGo have this as an exclusion for the travel warning. Fails to mention what happens if that warning occurs while you are there. Any thoughts?

My first thought is what is it that you have in mind that you might want to claim for?

People always want to ask 'am I covered?', but the reply is always 'are you covered for what?'

My second thought is, is there a definition of 'travel' or 'travelling' somewhere in the policy that means that as soon as you leave home you are 'travelling' even if you have started living somewhere else for the foreseeable future (albeit not permanently)? That will be relevant for the people currently living in Austria, Netherlands etc.

 

[prozac]

I like in the UK, but if someone really needed help I would quite literally get on my bike and go to help them

I was meant to be there in 2 weeks for my birthday, but that's obviously been canned.

I can't get over your generosity Flashback.
Here's an update. Now she has a chest infection. A telephone consult with a private GP has her on antibiotics but no suggestion she has Covid. Basically she still cannot / is not allowed to travel so will likely be stuck there as things change.
I expect AMS may be locked down at some point so have suggested she keeps up with the news and gets ready to hop on a train to family in the countryside near Groningen. At least she will be able to walk the dog.

 

[Anna]

Disclaimer - this is not legal advice and I have not read the whole of any travel insurance policy so anyone who attempts this is doing so on their own without any blessing from me.

But - the point of section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act is to prevent insurers from denying claims by relying on exclusion clauses that are irrelevant to the claim. So an insurer who wants to rely on the DFAT advisory as a reason to deny a claim would need to show that the DFAT advisory had some relevance to the substance of the claim. If someone wanted to stay overseas they might want to argue section 54 to their insurer (again - this is not legal advice, and I personally would not attempt this as it has a high degree of difficulty but like a double back somersault with three twists it would be an excellent result if carried out successfully).

54 Insurer may not refuse to pay claims in certain circumstances

(1) Subject to this section, where the effect of a contract of insurance would, but for this section, be that the insurer may refuse to pay a claim, either in whole or in part, by reason of some act of the insured or of some other person, being an act that occurred after the contract was entered into but not being an act in respect of which subsection (2) applies, the insurer may not refuse to pay the claim by reason only of that act but the insurer’s liability in respect of the claim is reduced by the amount that fairly represents the extent to which the insurer’s interests were prejudiced as a result of that act.

(2) Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, where the act could reasonably be regarded as being capable of causing or contributing to a loss in respect of which insurance cover is provided by the contract, the insurer may refuse to pay the claim.

(3) Where the insured proves that no part of the loss that gave rise to the claim was caused by the act, the insurer may not refuse to pay the claim by reason only of the act.

(4) Where the insured proves that some part of the loss that gave rise to the claim was not caused by the act, the insurer may not refuse to pay the claim, so far as it concerns that part of the loss, by reason only of the act.

(5) Where:

(a) the act was necessary to protect the safety of a person or to preserve property; or

(b) it was not reasonably possible for the insured or other person not to do the act;

the insurer may not refuse to pay the claim by reason only of the act.

(6) A reference in this section to an act includes a reference to:

(a) an omission; and

(b) an act or omission that has the effect of altering the state or condition of the subject‑matter of the contract or of allowing the state or condition of that subject‑matter to alter.

 

[prozac]

Disclaimer - this is not legal advice and I have not read the whole of any travel insurance policy so anyone who attempts this is doing so on their own without any blessing from me.

But - the point of section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act is to prevent insurers from denying claims by relying on exclusion clauses that are irrelevant to the claim. So an insurer who wants to rely on the DFAT advisory as a reason to deny a claim would need to show that the DFAT advisory had some relevance to the substance of the claim. If someone wanted to stay overseas they might want to argue section 54 to their insurer (again - this is not legal advice, and I personally would not attempt this as it has a high degree of difficulty but like a double back somersault with three twists it would be an excellent result if carried out successfully).

54 Insurer may not refuse to pay claims in certain circumstances

(1) Subject to this section, where the effect of a contract of insurance would, but for this section, be that the insurer may refuse to pay a claim, either in whole or in part, by reason of some act of the insured or of some other person, being an act that occurred after the contract was entered into but not being an act in respect of which subsection (2) applies, the insurer may not refuse to pay the claim by reason only of that act but the insurer’s liability in respect of the claim is reduced by the amount that fairly represents the extent to which the insurer’s interests were prejudiced as a result of that act.

(2) Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, where the act could reasonably be regarded as being capable of causing or contributing to a loss in respect of which insurance cover is provided by the contract, the insurer may refuse to pay the claim.

(3) Where the insured proves that no part of the loss that gave rise to the claim was caused by the act, the insurer may not refuse to pay the claim by reason only of the act.

(4) Where the insured proves that some part of the loss that gave rise to the claim was not caused by the act, the insurer may not refuse to pay the claim, so far as it concerns that part of the loss, by reason only of the act.

(5) Where:

(a) the act was necessary to protect the safety of a person or to preserve property; or

(b) it was not reasonably possible for the insured or other person not to do the act;

the insurer may not refuse to pay the claim by reason only of the act.

(6) A reference in this section to an act includes a reference to:

(a) an omission; and

(b) an act or omission that has the effect of altering the state or condition of the subject‑matter of the contract or of allowing the state or condition of that subject‑matter to alter.

Thanks for your opinion Anna.
This may explain in part the Columbus Direct verbal response when I called them. It is detailed in my earlier post.

Best advice, contact the insurer. Problem, their website is down. . Phone the 1300 number but it cuts off as soon as the recorded message finishes. Now I am worried. Called the claim number and found someone...phew, I was getting concerned they had closed the doors.
So, here's the drum, if you have already commenced your travel your policy is still active despite the Level 4 travel warning. Would be nice to have it in writing, but I've diarised the discussion.

 

[JessicaTam]

Tonight the PM has announced that the overseas travel warning will be upgraded to a travel ban under the Biosecurity Act

 

[levelnine]

Tonight the PM has announced that the overseas travel warning will be upgraded to a travel ban under the Biosecurity Act

It's not actually a 'ban' though, is it? Simply an escalation of DFAT's travel advisory to 'Do Not Travel'.

 

[prozac]

It's not actually a 'ban' though, is it? Simply an escalation of DFAT's travel advisory to 'Do Not Travel'.

I understood the PM said it was just that, a ban of all non-essential travel.

 

[Pushka]

It's not actually a 'ban' though, is it? Simply an escalation of DFAT's travel advisory to 'Do Not Travel'.

It's a Ban. Except for Humanitarian Aid work. I just hope we aren't asked to bail out Indonesia.

 

[tgh]

bail out Indonesia.

nope not going to happen…It's every nation for itself.. all hands to the pumps.

All we need now is a rogue state like north Korea or Russia to make a move for world domination...

 

[levelnine]

Will have to wait until we see the order, but the PM said exceptions include travel for employment, which strikes me as a pretty big exception.

 

[milehighclub]

I interpret it like JessicaTam has. Complete ban on travel unless essential. He even said it's to stop people travelling for leisure.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I interpret it like JessicaTam has. Complete ban on travel unless essential. He even said it's to stop people travelling for leisure.

Exactly.

'Employment' might encompass things like flight crews bringing folk home.

Hopefully it will stop folk travelling overseas to start their cruise - despite knowing the risks involved Or the trip to Bali for a wedding

 

[levelnine]

You have to wonder how many people are still travelling for leisure.

There are almost no flights departing Australia. There is almost nothing open in many countries. There is no travel insurance cover.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You have to wonder how many people are still travelling for leisure.

There are almost no flights departing Australia. There is almost nothing open in many countries. There is no travel insurance cover.

It seems the PM had the figures. And he seemed surprised/disappointed at the numbers.

Why are people still boarding cruise ships????

 

[prozac]

Will have to wait until we see the order, but the PM said exceptions include travel for employment, which strikes me as a pretty big exception.

Nothing to wait for, it's a B.A.N.

Air crew, ship crew, etc all have special dispensation at all times. I once renewed a passport in an hour on the way to the airport one Boxing day.

 

[drron]

What about those serving out their time OS in quarantine but wanting then to come home.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What about those serving out their time OS in quarantine but wanting then to come home.

Australia can't refuse its own citizens.

 

[levelnine]

And he seemed surprised/disappointed at the numbers.

But that doesn't mean a lot. He could be disappointed at a figure of 1.

Nothing to wait for, it's a B.A.N.

With exceptions. Therefore it depends on how wide those exceptions are drafted. Which we will not know until we see the order.