Reconsider your need to travel areas

[MEL_Traveller]

As i pointed out upthread Covermore in particular have a secondary page you have to check the specific country, as they sometimes cover "reconsider the need to travel" but do not cover all places with the "reconsider the need to travel" warning level. Israel being the most glaring example right now.

DFAT has Israel listed as:
View attachment 431149

Travel alerts – world events that may affect your policy | Cover-More Australia directs you to Israel situation | Cover-More Australia however says you wont have cancellation coverage nor be covered for "claims arising as a result of war, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection or military or usurped power."

So the reason for Reconsider Your Need To Travel is actually more important than just the category.

It is always unwise to reply on generalizations wrt insurance, clauses and exemptions change frequently and the devil is always in the detail.

Most people get TI predominantly for medical coverage, cancellation and travel disruption. When the insurer can deny claims for these things simply by pointing to DFAT advise that notes conflict/war as the contributing factor to the "Reconsider You Need To Travel" your policy becomes pretty worthless.

I don’t think there is a travel insurance policy out there that covers claims relating to war, invasion, act of foreign enemy etc etc.

So the only material impact of the covermore warning is that *cancellation* won’t be covered. Everything else is ‘same same’, they’re just reminding you that you won’t be covered for war-related injury.

You won’t be covered by Covermore if you were in the UK and experienced injury through an act of war or any of the other things listed immediately above.

You would still be covered in Israel if you fell over, or got hit by a car or something else of that ilk.

 

[Mattg]

Did any not, however?

Yes, quite a few did/do not cover “reconsider your need to travel” destinations.

 

[Cynicor]

Yes, quite a few did/do not cover “reconsider your need to travel” destinations.

Really, do you have an example?

 

[Mattg]

Really, do you have an example?

Yes. Here is the Allianz travel insurance PDS:

https://cft-onex-api.agaassistance.com.au/api/document/pds/allianz-travel

Which includes this clause:

Coverage may be affected or declined where a claim arises because you did not follow an advice or warning issued by an Australian government relating to your destination. This includes travelling when a ‘Reconsider your need to travel’ or ‘Do not travel’ alert is in place and not taking action to minimise or avoid any potential claim. Please note, this also applies even if the Australian government has given you permission to travel or you fall under a specific exemption where there is otherwise a travel ban in place that prohibits you from travelling.

 

[oz_mark]

Southern Cross Travel Insurance excludes 'Reconsider Your Need to Travel'

https://www.scti.com.au/-/media/project/scti/nz/au/pdfs/international-comprehensive-single-trip-product-disclosure-statement-au.pdf

Exclusion:

You travelling to a country or destination where a travel advisory of ‘Do not travel’ or ‘Reconsider your need to travel’ has been published on www.smartraveller.gov.au before the date your insurance starts.

 

[JohnK]

But if the warning is "reconsider your need to travel" or "do not travel" the day your take our your policy, you cant claim you didn't know it was unsafe to travel and therefore you may not be covered for disruptions to journey in the former and definitely wont be covered for anything in the later.

I did not realise I had to check SmartTraveller before each trip to Thailand for updated warnings on travel so I can claim I don't know if there's a "reconsider your need to travel" or "do not travel" warnings in place.

Maybe I should start purchasing medical coverage from AXA in Thailand but they are little on the expensive side.

 

[Cynicor]

Thanks. I’ve not seen that exclusion in any policy prior. I note SCTI seem to be their own insurer and not also underwriter by Allianz, which suggests that any company that resells either (if any exist) would also have such exclusions

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Southern Cross Travel Insurance excludes 'Reconsider Your Need to Travel'

https://www.scti.com.au/-/media/project/scti/nz/au/pdfs/international-comprehensive-single-trip-product-disclosure-statement-au.pdf

Exclusion:

How ridiculous!! Just read the exclusion on the SCTI PDS. They won’t cover you if ‘reconsider your need to travel’ was in place before you booked. That’s bad enough.

But… if the travel advice changes between when you book and when you fly, you’re also not covered… except they’ll allow you to cancel!

So SCTI would rather pay out tens of thousands of dollars for flight and hotel cancellation, rather than just exclude any injury from war or insurgency (etc). They’ll rather pay $10k than $100 for a sprained ankle cause you fell out of bed.

Stupid.

 

[BelindaJK101]

I've been to many 'reconsider' countries and have found it's only the Do Not travel places that are at risk.

Yes I think you’re right - it’s just some of the insurers that don’t cover, but I’ve found a lot do.

 

[BelindaJK101]

How ridiculous!! Just read the exclusion on the SCTI PDS. They won’t cover you if ‘reconsider your need to travel’ was in place before you booked. That’s bad enough.

But… if the travel advice changes between when you book and when you fly, you’re also not covered… except they’ll allow you to cancel!

So SCTI would rather pay out tens of thousands of dollars for flight and hotel cancellation, rather than just exclude any injury from war or insurgency (etc). They’ll rather pay $10k than $100 for a sprained ankle cause you fell out of bed.

Stupid.

What’s also really annoying is that for some reason Smart Traveller seems to be more conservative on many locations compared to the equivalent for UK and US, designating more areas as do not travel, while they designate them as reconsider!

 

[Lynda2475]

Yes I called out SCTI back on post #15. Cancellation in the event of travel warnings rarely equates to 100%, most providers are reasonable and give most pre-paid funds back, so SCTIs liability would just be a percentage.

Except in cases of natural disaster (where operators don't want you to come so more likely to give you a credit or refund), the warnings rarely goes from L1 to L3, they usually go to L2 first.

Looking at the countries on L3 and L4 right now most are best avoided until they get to a decent stretch or political stability.