When to purchase travel insurance?

[lovetravellingoz]

Yes that would be the case.

Yes sorry AFTER.

That is insurance must be taken out BEFORE any incident.

 

[Travel Guru]

Yes sorry AFTER.

That is insurance must be taken out BEFORE any incident.

No offence but I would have thought that was just common sense.

TG

 

[JohnK]

I think my stress-head self would rather get it as soon as I've put money down for ANYTHING.

That would be totally true if taking out insurance for a trip coming up in the near future.

Someone like me who takes out annual policies would prefer to defer payment of annual policy if no trip is planned for a few months. In other words why pay for insurance if I am not likely to travel for another 3 months?

No offence but I would have thought that was just common sense.

Common sense? Easier said than done....

 

[themaiz]

I've been using Travel Insurance Direct for years. Quick, easy, and appears to be very good value. Have I claimed yet? No.... so it could be that I'll revise my glowing report if I have a bad experience. For the moment, it matches my needs... with one caveat described below.

I renew it automatigically every year when it's due, because I know I'll be doing many domestic trips and overseas long hauls (four trips to the US last year, eg), and I break even on travel insurance after two trips or fewer. Why do I pay on the due date, instead of holding off until re-needed? Well, maths suggests that if I hold off to purchase until I know I'm travelling, then over four or five years I'd save one year of premiums... maybe. More likely I'd forget and travel uninsured.

Check the fine print with any insurance. Last year I was on a trip to the US when... how do I put this? An incident occurred which required me to hospitalise my fatherinlaw - a pretty close relative. One very viable option for me was to extend my stay to manage the situation rather than fly someone else in. But that would have required changes to unchangeable fares, or class changes, or... etc, etc. We all know how that works for the airlines now.

Does my travel insurance cover change to my itinerary for a family emergency like this? Well, I'd thought so, but unbelievably, no. It covers someone rushing overseas to deal with an emergency involving me, it covers me if I have to cancel a trip or rush back to Australia to handle an emergency involving with an Australian domiciled relative, but excludes coverage of an emergency situation involving a relative who is domiciled in the country of travel. Not quite what I'd hoped, and completely unforseen. Repeat: check the fine print, and YMMV.

 

[harvyk]

Does my travel insurance cover change to my itinerary for a family emergency like this? Well, I'd thought so, but unbelievably, no. It covers someone rushing overseas to deal with an emergency involving me, it covers me if I have to cancel a trip or rush back to Australia to handle an emergency involving with an Australian domiciled relative, but excludes coverage of an emergency situation involving a relative who is domiciled in the country of travel. Not quite what I'd hoped, and completely unforseen. Repeat: check the fine print, and YMMV.

Actually that makes perfect sence... It may seem strange that they would extend your stay to help a relative, had your relative been injured and you where in Australia at the time your insurance is not going to pay for you to go OS to be with them. So the way they figure is that your relative would have been by themselves anyway...

 

[jacercat]

Readng the small print and comparing the terms and conditions of different insurers is sound advice - in theory. Has anyone actually carried out this exercise? As a lawyer I can tell you that it's almost impossible to compare 4 or 5 different policies in anything less than the most peremptory fashion in less than 4 to 5 full working days. This really is a job that a consumer organisation should take on. You need charts and computer assistance in order properly to compare and assess the different benefits and risks. And even then the tiniest difference in wording can and (as more than one poster here has found to his cost) often does produce completely different outcomes from those an intelligent layman might have assumed would be the case. Insurance policies traditionally - and with good reason - have been regarded by lawyers as a legal minefield. Written in insurancespeak the policies NEVER give the cover the insured thinks he's buying. Contesting rejected claims is a nightmare - read the John Grisham novel for a very accurate and not over exaggerated account of the workings of the industry. The solution? None - unless ad until governments grasp the nettle and legislate that policies must contain a set of standard terms and inclusions that cannot be changed - a bit like sale of goods legislation - only more detailed.

Best advice? Stick with recognised names backed by word of mouth rcommendations from as many sources as possible.

 

[straitman]

jacercat,

I think you have managed to verbalise, from a lawyers perspective, what many of us think about travel insurance, from a mere mortals perspective.