Maybe I am just not getting the point.
I was in the US when the Iceland Volcano erupted. Initially, the airlines were claiming no responsibility for costs associated with missed flights, food and board and alternate booking to get home.
I was inclined to agree. The airline did not choose not to fly, the decision to ground European and Transatlantic was made by regulatory bodies outside of the airlines. The Airline Operators had no choice in the matter.
But, as I said to myself, that is why I bought Travel Insurance. However, when I examined the policy, I discovered that under the two sections "Cancellation and Curtailment" and "Travel Delay", there is a disclaimer (one of at least 10) itemising what is not covered.
"Withdrawal from service of the aircraft, sea vessel, coach or train on which You are booked to travel, by order or recommendation of the regulatory authority in any country. You should direct any claim in this case to the transport operator involved."
Why is it that Insurance companies are allowed to seemingly offer what would be basic cover and then manage to exclude most of the real world reasons for basing a claim?
And, like I said at the beginning, why is it that the airlines are being clobbered for something totally outside their control, while the travel insurance companies are getting no flack whatsoever. After all, insurance is to cover for the unexpected.
I was in the US when the Iceland Volcano erupted. Initially, the airlines were claiming no responsibility for costs associated with missed flights, food and board and alternate booking to get home.
I was inclined to agree. The airline did not choose not to fly, the decision to ground European and Transatlantic was made by regulatory bodies outside of the airlines. The Airline Operators had no choice in the matter.
But, as I said to myself, that is why I bought Travel Insurance. However, when I examined the policy, I discovered that under the two sections "Cancellation and Curtailment" and "Travel Delay", there is a disclaimer (one of at least 10) itemising what is not covered.
"Withdrawal from service of the aircraft, sea vessel, coach or train on which You are booked to travel, by order or recommendation of the regulatory authority in any country. You should direct any claim in this case to the transport operator involved."
Why is it that Insurance companies are allowed to seemingly offer what would be basic cover and then manage to exclude most of the real world reasons for basing a claim?
And, like I said at the beginning, why is it that the airlines are being clobbered for something totally outside their control, while the travel insurance companies are getting no flack whatsoever. After all, insurance is to cover for the unexpected.
