# Travel Insurance Question



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I have been looking into travel insurance for my wife and I. I was reading the policy from Manulife's Cover Me plan and it stipulates that they will not cover 



> "any loss, injury or death related to intoxication, the misuse, abuse or overdose of, or chemical dependence on medication, drugs, alcohol or intoxicant".


Now I am not a heavy drinker nor an alcoholic, but if one was ever going to find me a little tipsy from a few extra drinks, it might be when I was on a holiday. If I got plastered in Ontario and broke my leg, dancing like no one was watching, they would fix me right up for no charge. I can understand their reluctance to insure alcoholics or drug addicts but I am wondering how far they go with this clause. What if a person had only one or two drinks but was not actually legally too drunk to drive.

Anyone know if all insurers use this standard clause and also, whether they do or not, anyone got a preferred carrier they use for travel insurance for a particular reason. Price is always a good reason, but coverage and claims experience is certainly not far behind.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

We have had great experience with Mediquote (10 years) but the insurance companies change each year because there is no discount for longevity, i.e. claims have no impact on premiums. Each year they shop around for the best coverage.

We have never been tested for alcohol, but some tourists have fallen off balconies while drinking. I can see why they would include the clause.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Interesting question OE.

I suspect that most insurers use policy language similar to what you have quoted, but it might pay to make some inquiries. 

However, I would not worry too much about it if, indeed, while travelling you never have a BAC higher than the limit allowed for driving. In such case, the insurer would be hard pressed to say the loss was "related to intoxication" or "abuse or overdose", if local law permits you to drive in that condition. To avoid liability in such case, more precise policy language would be required, essentially saying that if alcohol is found in your blood, beyond a trace amount, then coverage is avoided. 

As well, there would have to be evidence that the loss was indeed "related to" the alcohol use, not simply that alcohol in your blood was an incidental finding of no causal significance. It helps to keep in mind that insurance policies are interpreted "_contra proferentem_", i.e., against the party proffering the document. If there is any ambiguity in the meaning of the words, the interpretation most favourable to the insured must prevail.

Curiously, in BC at least, we do not see a lot of litigation over travel insurance. Perhaps because most of the claims are not large enough to warrant the cost of litigation. Insureds who are denied coverage probably just suck it up, rather than sue. With a link to the actual judgment following the summary, here's the most recent case I have seen (and I doubt I have missed any):

Fletcher v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2017 BCSC 1330

TRAVEL INSURANCE — Exclusions • Travel medical insurance policy provided by defendant to plaintiff covering expenses "incurred as a result of an emergency due to sudden and unforeseen sickness and/or injury ", and excluding expenses related to "any medical condition for which prior to departure, medical evidence suggests a reasonable expectation that treatment or hospitalization could be required while travelling" — Plaintiff undergoing investigation for angina before departing on 2-week trip to Mexico, and his physicians advising him his condition was stable and that an intended angiograph could be done on his return — Plaintiff requiring emergency heart surgery while on his trip, and incurring expenses — Court finding exclusion clause not applying where plaintiff’s physicians reasonably concluded the proposed trip posed no reasonable expectations of risk to his health — Plaintiff entitled to declaration of indemnity, not damages. 

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/17/13/2017BCSC1330.htm


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

You made me look at my Johnson Medoc Travel Insurance policy, because I don't remember seeing that exclusion. They do have one, but it is a little more precise than Manulife:
_"...; alcohol abuse, alcoholism, or an accident while being impaired by drugs or alcohol or having a (blood) alcohol concentration that exceeds (.08)..."_

As far as I can determine, my underlying PSHCP group insurance plan, which also has $500K out-of country insurance coverage, doesn't have such an exclusion.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

So you're saying that the tourist in South Africa a couple years back who got hammered one night, jumped into a pond where he knew there were alligators and got eaten alive probably wouldn't have been covered if he'd survived? 

Jeez, these insurance companies are tough.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

So the insurance company rep got back to me and as some of you alluded to, they say that the accident or loss, so to speak, has to be a result directly from the intoxication itself. So if I was hammered in the back seat of a car, where the driver was also hammered, and an accident happened, I would be covered because the accident was not the result of my personal impairment.

I think the important thing is to know about the clause and wherever possible deny that alcohol was even consumed and if the hospital does run a blood test or they find out in some other way, deny that the accident had anything to do with the alcohol consumed.

Sure I had a few drinks, but I have always enjoyed swimming with alligators and the alcohol actually had nothing to do with the accident. I would have done it anyways. Maybe the alligator was drunk? lol.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Our experience in shopping for out of country medical insurance is that the easier it is to get, ie on line from a bank, auto club, etc, the more expensive the coverage is, the more questions they ask, and the lesser the coverage amounts. Our experience relates primarily to travel medical for extended trips. We also had a policy a few years that gave us the option of reducing the premium by 30 percent if we moved to a 2 or 3K deductable (cannot remember which it was). We went that route. Had they offered a higher decuctable with an even larger premium discount we would have opted for that. Our concern is primarily for the larger costs and for medivac.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

indexxx said:


> So you're saying that the tourist in South Africa a couple years back who got hammered one night, jumped into a pond where he knew there were alligators and got eaten alive probably wouldn't have been covered if he'd survived?
> 
> Jeez, these insurance companies are tough.


I don't think terminal stupidity is an insurable condition.:biggrin-new:

I also note my travel insurance has the following exclusions: "...bungee jumping, parachuting, rock climbing, mountain climbing, hang-gliding, or skydiving."


----------



## seh (Nov 10, 2014)

OptsyEagle: As a general statement, my experience is that insurance companies will probe deeply to find any possible reason to deny a claim. I can't find the link now, but remember a news story a year or two ago about a Canadian who slipped on the Cuban hotel's reception area floor and broke his arm. Upon placing the claim with the insurer for medical bills, he was asked if he had anything to drink, and he answered yes, he had a welcome rum punch while waiting to check in (or maybe the insurer asked the front desk if they saw him having a drink - I can't remember the exact details). Claim was denied saying it was "related to alcohol consumption". 

There was no requirement for them to prove he misused/abused/was intoxicated in any way. Perhaps he could have won if he took this to court, but the first reaction of most insurers, is to look for a way to deny.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

indexxx said:


> So you're saying that the tourist in South Africa a couple years back who got hammered one night, jumped into a pond where he knew there were alligators and got eaten alive probably wouldn't have been covered if he'd survived?


There are no alligators in South Africa!!


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Theres no charge in Cuba for health care according to a couple cruiser friends with no insurance.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

agent99 said:


> There are no alligators in South Africa!!


You could argue the point with a 4m crocodile.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

seh said:


> OptsyEagle: As a general statement, my experience is that insurance companies will probe deeply to find any possible reason to deny a claim. I can't find the link now, but remember a news story a year or two ago about a Canadian who slipped on the Cuban hotel's reception area floor and broke his arm. Upon placing the claim with the insurer for medical bills, he was asked if he had anything to drink, and he answered yes, he had a welcome rum punch while waiting to check in (or maybe the insurer asked the front desk if they saw him having a drink - I can't remember the exact details). Claim was denied saying it was "related to alcohol consumption".
> 
> There was no requirement for them to prove he misused/abused/was intoxicated in any way. Perhaps he could have won if he took this to court, but the first reaction of most insurers, is to look for a way to deny.


I have no delusions about the motivations of insurance companies but it appears to be a standard clause, even though I find that it is quite unreasonable. The lions share of humanity enjoy an occasional drink now and then and many get outright plastered without any dire consequences. We buy travel insurance to protect us. Even the drunk is going to do everything he/she can to avoid breaking a leg. But when the 0.000001% of us do break a leg, we are buying the insurance to cover that "accident". This is just another clause in hopes that we either don't notice it until it is too late or don't complain enough until one of their competitors improves their coverage...and maybe one has, which was the point of this post.

Anyway, in the example you had, that traveler made a very big mistake. They admitted taking a drink. I will not make that mistake. Obviously with a little investigation they can possibly uncover that drink but I for one will ensure they are required to go to all that trouble. 

If they can be unreasonable, so can I....and as I said, it does not appear that I have a lot of choice. Not enjoying a drink on my vacation will not be one of them.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

gardner said:


> You could argue the point with a 4m crocodile.


Alligators are only native to America and China. Crocodiles are much more widespread and there are various varieties. We play golf in USA on courses where there are dozens of alligators. I wouldn't do that if they were African crocodiles! But we do still keep clear of them!

The incident with the tourist was in Zimbabwe near the Victoria Falls. Article says just over South African border, but writer's geography is suspect. Victoria falls is on Zambezi river that borders Zimbabwe and Zambia. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5578247/Drunken-tourist-21-arm-ripped-three-crocodiles.html Victim was airlifted to a South African hospital.

Regarding insurance - be careful to fill medical questionnaire accurately, with help of doctor if need be. Any slight error can result in claims being disallowed, even if unrelated to care required. Some (very few) companies offer policy where the insured doesn't have to pay more than a stipulated sum, even if they do make an unintentional error on the questionnaire. CAA in Ontario had such a clause last time we insured through them. ($5000 max, IIRC)


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

You all do realize I hope that if you are in an accident at home when driving your car while drunk (Legal limit) that your car insurance will not cover you either.

What's more, most travel medical coverage also states somewhere that your policy is void if you are doing anything illegal at all during your trip. That would automatically include 'driving under the influence'. It would also include turning up a one way street and driving in the wrong direction as another example. You don't get to claim, 'but I'm just a dumb tourist and didn't realize it was a one way the other way, my insurance should cover me.'

Another standard term you will find in travel insurance (non-medical) refers to 'reasonable care.' This applies for example when a person hangs a handbag or camera case, etc. over the back of a chair and it is then stolen. They get a big surprise when the insurance company tells them they did not exercise 'reasonable care' and that their claim is denied.

Insurance policies are very specific and it is the responsibility of the person buying a policy to make sure they read and *understand* the terms and conditions they are agreeing to. It's not about what someone *thinks* they are covered for, it is about what the policy tells them they are covered for or not covered for.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Very good advice.

That is why I decided to read the travel policy I was being offered before I bought it. If anyone else has read theirs and they do not have this alcohol clause or it is a little more reasonable I would be very interested to hear about it.

What I find annoying with insurance companies is their lack of reason. This is not specific to their industry but it is their industry where my current beef is found. What the travel insurance industry will do is look at where a lot of their claims come from. This is information they have and we do not. They will find some area where a larger then random amount of claims are found. For example, people who drink. Since they rarely cover pre-exhisting health conditions, I can assume a lot of their claims will come from accidents. I can also imagine that alcohol consumers will probably have a lot more accidents then non-alcohol consumers. So they then see an opportunity. If they can exclude all claims from this group, they could lower their premium by a significant magnitude below their competitor, who covers all accidents irregardless of alcohol consumption. Since consumers tend to always look at the premium, but very rarely read the policy in detail, or understand it in detail, they tend to find these types of exclusions very profitable.

None of that, however, works in the consumers interest. As I said above, alcohol consumption is not illegal. Even being drunk is not illegal unless some other activity like driving a vehicle is involved. I have no problem excluding things that are criminal in nature. I just think that many consumers would prefer to have a travel policy that accommodates what they intend to do during their travels. I would even be willing to pay the appropriate higher price to acquire it. I buy this stuff for piece of mind. It loses that considerably when they say they will not pay for things that I think may need to be paid for.

Anyway, that is my complaint. I think it is quite obvious that this stuff fails for a large section of our population. The only way we can get a competitor to add this coverage, is to inform as many consumers of travel insurance as possible about this defect. The competitor could even simply add it as a rider for an additional premium if they wanted to maintain their pricing comparisons against their other competitors who play this dangerous game with their customers. They could price it like life insurance where cigarette smokers pay a higher premium then non-cigarette smokers. 

So as I said, if anyone knows of a travel insurer who has a more reasonable policy surrounding alcohol consumption, I would appreciate hearing about it. I do not need it to say that being falling down drunk is OK, just more of an allowance for normal alcohol consumption then what most seem to offer. In Ontario, I have the freedom to do what I want when it comes to my health care. I would like to buy the same coverage when I am abroad. It seems so simple but it appears to be very difficult to get. I know there is a cost for this and I am willing to pay my fair share for it. It is just hard to find.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> Very good advice.
> 
> That is why I decided to read the travel policy I was being offered before I bought it. If anyone else has read theirs and they do not have this alcohol clause or it is a little more reasonable I would be very interested to hear about it.
> 
> ...


Well, I would say that you are looking at it from only one viewpoint, your own and that you are ignoring the fact that any company is in business to make a profit, not lose money.

If you get drunk and accidently fall down a staircase and that results in a broken leg, you want to be covered. OK, I get that. But I also get that the insurer says, drunks are more likely to have an accidental fall, so let's exclude them from coverage. Both viewpoints make sense from their respective points of view.

Now you may be willing to pay more to get coverage for that fall OptsyEagle, but it does not change the fact that the policy does not cover it. The issue comes when people have the fall and expect the policy to cover it when in fact it does not. They didn't read the policy, it is their own fault they are not going to get what they expect, coverage.

Someone could argue that in fact having such a fall covered under OHIP when you are at home, shouldn't be covered either. Someone who breaks a leg due to their own stupidity in controlling their alcohol consumption should have to pay for it out of their own pocket, not have it paid for by all Ontario citizens who are paying into OHIP but not falling down drunk. But that is another topic for another day perhaps.

To answer your question, you can get insurance for pretty much anything you want if you are willing to pay for it. That it is not easy for you to find is simply because most people are not willing to pay for it (just expect it) and so most insurance companies do not offer it. 

Lloyds of London is famous for insuring just about anything anyone can think of to ask them to insure. https://havenlife.com/blog/craziest-things-insured-lloyds-london/

You can find various other links listing strange things they have insured: https://www.thebalancesmb.com/oddities-insured-by-lloyd-s-462503

I'm sure they'll give you a quote for breaking a leg while drunk if you ask them OptsyEagle. Just don't be surprised by how high the cost will be.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We did have claim experience with Manulife. This is a pension plan benefit that covers us the first 60 days out of country. Then we have another insurer for the post 60 day period.

My spouse broke several vertebrae in her back while we were in Kuala Lumpur four years ago. A half day hospital stay, xrays, consult, then an MRI and another consult. Ten days worth of prescription meds. Included was a written report, CD of the MRI and the xrays. Total cost was $750 CAD.

We had to submit to Alberta Health first. That took 8 weeks. They paid $50. Then we submitted to Manulife. They deposited the full value of our claim, less AHS $50 payment, in our bank account within 7 business days. No follow up question, no trying to weasel out of the claim. They did not even ask for our airline boarding passes. 

Our second only claim was on our Capital One Aspire travel MC three months ago. They paid a $1200 trip cancellation claim within two weeks. No questions asked.

I suspect that small claims go though quickly and are reviewed by a clerk to ensure the numbers add up.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> Well, I would say that you are looking at it from only one viewpoint, your own and that you are ignoring the fact that any company is in business to make a profit, not lose money.


I think I did a pretty good job outlining their viewpoint as well as mine. All I am saying is that their policy does not cover what the majority of travelers want and probably think it covers. Because of this, they are taking advantage of an unsuspecting public, as do most other companies in most industries. I am not asking them to lose money. I am well aware of the importance of them maintaining a profit. They and all other companies are just a reflection of the consumer. If the consumer demanded more from them, they would provide it. The real problem I have is the consumer is either not aware of this or does not care. I am just trying to get some of them to care and by doing so, maybe some day, this void will get filled.

If it doesn't, and it probably won't, I will get by just fine. I am not a heavy drinker and have a very good knack to back off as the substances start to take away my ability to think and walk. I practice this all the time but when in foreign countries and environments I am not as familiar with, I practice it wholeheartedly. So I am pretty sure I can make due with what these companies offer, but I have seen many people on vacations, that I am sure have travel insurance that is probably not worth the paper it is printed on, because of how they go about enjoying their vacations. If they understood it better, they wouldn't bother buying it and by not buying it, perhaps the changes I am hoping for might come about.

That is really my only viewpoint.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> I think I did a pretty good job outlining their viewpoint as well as mine. All I am saying is that their policy does not cover what the majority of travelers want and probably think it covers. Because of this, they are taking advantage of an unsuspecting public, as do most other companies in most industries. I am not asking them to lose money. I am well aware of the importance of them maintaining a profit. They and all other companies are just a reflection of the consumer. If the consumer demanded more from them, they would provide it. The real problem I have is the consumer is either not aware of this or does not care. I am just trying to get some of them to care and by doing so, maybe some day, this void will get filled.
> 
> If it doesn't, and it probably won't, I will get by just fine. I am not a heavy drinker and have a very good knack to back off as the substances start to take away my ability to think and walk. I practice this all the time but when in foreign countries and environments I am not as familiar with, I practice it wholeheartedly. So I am pretty sure I can make due with what these companies offer, but I have seen many people on vacations, that I am sure have travel insurance that is probably not worth the paper it is printed on, because of how they go about enjoying their vacations. If they understood it better, they wouldn't bother buying it and by not buying it, perhaps the changes I am hoping for might come about.
> 
> That is really my only viewpoint.


Nothing wrong with trying to educate the average traveller OptsyEagle, but I will still take exception when you write, "Because of this, they are taking advantage of an unsuspecting public". You are putting the blame for people not reading their policies on the Insurer rather than on the person buying the policy. It is not the Insurer's responsibility nor could it be, to make people read the policy they buy. That responsibility lies with the buyer.

I'm reminded of a guy I knew many years ago who bought a new Volkswagen Rabbit. He drove it for maybe 18 months or more and then one day it just quit on him. When he had it towed to the dealer and inspected, the dealer told him, 'there was no oil in the engine. It seized and you need a new motor. Why did you not check the oil?' His response was (and I kid you not) that when he bought the car, no one told him he had to check the oil. He demanded they replace the engine under warranty. I'm sure you know what their reply was.

When you buy a car, no one asks if you know to check the oil or know what to do if the 'engine check light' comes on, etc. They provide you with an Owner's Manual and you are expected to read it. They can't force you to read it and cannot be held responsible if you do not read it. They are not 'taking advantage' of the 'unsuspecting public' if you don't read it.

What the 'majority of travellers want and probably think is covered' is irrelevant. It is the buyer's job to know what they bought. So please do not accuse the seller of having any part of the blame for a buyer not doing their own due diligence.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

OK, lets call it "benefiting from an unsuspecting public" and leave it there. I did not say it was illegal but I would say it is a little unethical. They could work a little harder in helping the public understand their policies but that would of course reduce their profitability and we certainly cannot have that.

As I said, this behaviour is not exclusive to the insurance industry. Every industry attempts to take advantage of the unsuspecting public. There is tremendous money in it for them. The only cure, is to educate that same public. I doubt I will succeed but it did not cost me much to make my original post. 

I also appreciate when others on these boards highlight issues that help educate myself, although sometimes I think ignorance can really be bliss. It would be very rare for me to have an accident while drinking but now I get the pleasure of worrying about it a little more everytime I am doing it. With that in mind, I am not sure knowing about this stuff actually helps me all that much.. but you can't unknow something so it is what it is.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

World Nomads is highly praised by worldwide travelers but they also have short/destination policies. Most travel insurance have a long list of activities, sports and adventures that will null and void any coverage. World Nomads list

Ripcord Rescue and Global Rescue are praised by extreme travelers doing crazy things not necessarily even approved by World Nomads in locations not usually covered. They can send ex-special forces teams worldwide to save your sorry ***

Medjet I've heard nothing but bad things. The normal ones I wouldn't touch.. completely useless.. they will void anything besides sitting on a beach sober at an all-inclusive resort with all you can drink alcohol.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> OK, lets call it "benefiting from an unsuspecting public" and leave it there. I did not say it was illegal but I would say it is a little unethical. They could work a little harder in helping the public understand their policies but that would of course reduce their profitability and we certainly cannot have that.
> 
> As I said, this behaviour is not exclusive to the insurance industry. Every industry attempts to take advantage of the unsuspecting public. There is tremendous money in it for them. The only cure, is to educate that same public. I doubt I will succeed but it did not cost me much to make my original post.
> 
> I also appreciate when others on these boards highlight issues that help educate myself, although sometimes I think ignorance can really be bliss. It would be very rare for me to have an accident while drinking but now I get the pleasure of worrying about it a little more everytime I am doing it. With that in mind, I am not sure knowing about this stuff actually helps me all that much.. but you can't unknow something so it is what it is.


Nope, I still can't agree with your viewpoint OptsyEagle. You are still trying to put all *responsibility* onto the insurer and that dog simply won't hunt.

Nor are they 'benefiting' in any way beyond what they are entitled to receive as a benefit for providing insurance. They sell a policy and provide clear Terms and Conditions that tell you what it covers and does not cover. You buy a policy and can see for yourself what it does and does not cover. All insurance has to work in what we could call a 'reverse benefit' form. To benefit financially, they have to take in more than they pay out. For you to benefit financially, you have to make a claim. Consider life insurance, they bet you won't die and you bet you will die. How crazy is that? But that's the way it has to work.

The insurance companies simply use actuarial tables to calculate how often they will have to pay out. So for example if they expect to pay out $50 million per year, they adjust their selling prices to bring in say $54 million per year leaving them a $4 million profit. There is nothing 'unethical' in that. If they didn't make a profit what would be the point of being in business.

I don't know just how you expect an insurance company to 'work a little harder in helping the public understand their policies'. They give you the Terms and Conditions to read, what more do you specifically expect them to do? It's not enough to say they could 'work a little harder'. You need to say exactly what that means and how they could do it? Should they insist on reading all the terms and conditions to you when you are buying and go over each point until they are sure that you understand each point? That would help the buyer understand perhaps but is it practical to expect them to do that? No, OptsyEagle, the responsibility for understanding what you have and have not bought is your (the buyer) responsibility, not the insurers. They've done all they can do from a practical standpoint. It would only be 'unethical' if they did not provide you with a copy of the Terms and Conditions and instead brought them out into the light after you made a claim.

The 'unsuspecting public' as you refer to them are really the 'ignorant and lazy public' in reality. If you do your 'due diligence' which is your(the buyer) responsibility to do, then you cannot be 'unsuspecting'.

True cases of the 'unsuspecting public' being wronged occur when you buy something having been told it will perform as advertised and in fact the seller knows it will not. An example of that would be when an auto manufacturer sells you a car and makes misleading and deceptive statements. Here are some examples of that kind of behaviour:
http://fortune.com/2015/09/26/auto-industry-scandals/

An insurance company that *tells* you that it will not cover you for an accident if it is caused by your drinking alcohol is NOT an example of that and they are not 'benefitting from an unsuspecting public.'


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

OK. Lets agree to disagree. Can you agree with that?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> OK. Lets agree to disagree. Can you agree with that?


Maybe. What are we disagreeing on though? LOL


----------



## seh (Nov 10, 2014)

[I said:


> An insurance company that *tells* you that it will not cover you for an accident if it is caused by your drinking alcohol...[/I].'


But that was my point in an earlier post. Unless you want to take them to court, they don't have to prove the accident was caused by your drinking alcohol. If you admit to, or someone reports to them, that you had even one (highly diluted) rum punch, even many hours before the accident, many (if not most) insurers will latch on to that very tenuous connection to the policy wording, and deny your claim. Then it's up to *you* if you want to litigate. 

The exact policy wording is one issue. They way many insurers apply it is another.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I believe insurance companies also want 3 months of stability on medical conditions and prescriptions.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

new dog said:


> I believe insurance companies also want 3 months of stability on medical conditions and prescriptions.


It’s actually 6 months. Also, to be aware if you are using the trip interruption insurance for an emergency return because of a family memeber at home, THEIR meds and condition needs to be stable in the six months beefore insurance purchase. 

We did a detailed investigation since my mother had a stroke last year and had a couple of falls. We had an international trip planned and debated on extra trip cancellation / interruption in case my mother got worse. Because of her recent condition, and adjustment of meds, the insurance would have been most likely ineligible if she got worst. We had a very long discussion with my dad and family and agreed that the insurance was. Ot worth it, and if something really serious happened, we would not tell the people travelling until they arrived back home and have the arrangements then 

Something else people need to be aware of.


----------



## seh (Nov 10, 2014)

Plugging Along said:


> It’s actually 6 months. Also, to be aware if you are using the trip interruption insurance for an emergency return because of a family memeber at home, THEIR meds and condition needs to be stable in the six months beefore insurance purchase.
> 
> We did a detailed investigation since my mother had a stroke last year and had a couple of falls. We had an international trip planned and debated on extra trip cancellation / interruption in case my mother got worse. Because of her recent condition, and adjustment of meds, the insurance would have been most likely ineligible if she got worst. We had a very long discussion with my dad and family and agreed that the insurance was. Ot worth it, and if something really serious happened, we would not tell the people travelling until they arrived back home and have the arrangements then
> 
> Something else people need to be aware of.


Very true Plugging Along. A couple of years ago on route to a destination, I received news that my 91 yr. old mother had suddenly passed away, and immediately returned home. Upon submitting the trip interruption claim, the insurer demanded medical records from HER doctor. In the end they accepted the coroner's report, because it said sudden cardiac arrest. Don't know if her doctor would have even released records or filled out forms based on a request from someone who is not his patient and who he has never met. (by the way - the insurer said that if the doctor charged me for these forms they wanted filled out, they would not cover it).


----------

