Travel Insurance - Understand what you bought covers

(21-07-2012, 08:41 PM)Temperament Wrote: O. K. will do. So can any insurance specialist explain in simple terms?

Well I'm certainly no specialist, but at least this plan covers illness for med evac. The only catch I see, which I think is reasonable, is that Travel Guard or it's associates will call the shots as to the necessity and type of evac that takes place.

(21-07-2012, 11:53 PM)Muck Wrote:

(21-07-2012, 08:41 PM)Temperament Wrote: O. K. will do. So can any insurance specialist explain in simple terms?

Well I'm certainly no specialist, but at least this plan covers illness for med evac. The only catch I see, which I think is reasonable, is that Travel Guard or it's associates will call the shots as to the necessity and type of evac that takes place.

Travel Guard calls the shot is clear & "fair" enough (until if there are any disagreements with cliamant) but the clause of Exclusion is vague to me.

(22-07-2012, 09:50 AM)Temperament Wrote: Travel Guard calls the shot is clear & "fair" enough (until if there are any disagreements with cliamant) but the clause of Exclusion is vague to me.

I am not specialist too. I captured the "EXCLUSIONS" below for reference. In simple term, the exclusion saying

-the policy will not compensate you for your mistake
-the policy will not compensate you for expenses already included in the trip. (i.e. not to sponsor your trip)
-the policy will not compensate you for expenses not approved by them (i.e. not to be "carrot-head" )
-if due to valid reason, the approval is waived, the policy will only compensate you with a fair amount, instead of expense incurred (i.e. not to be "carrot-head" )

It sound fair and square. Which part is vague?

Quote:EXCLUSIONS
We will not pay for:
1) any expenses incurred for services provided by another party for which You are
not liable to pay, or any expenses already included in the cost of a scheduled
Trip; and
2) any expenses for a service not approved and arranged by Travel Guard, or
an authorized representative of Travel Guard, unless We decide that such
expenses were necessarily incurred and for reasons beyond the control of You,
Your Relative or Travel Companion Travel Guard could not be contacted during
the emergency. In any event, We reserve the right to reimburse You only for
those expenses incurred for services which Travel Guard would have provided
under the same circumstances and up to the limit specifi ed in the Selected Plan
under Section 7.

(22-07-2012, 03:06 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(22-07-2012, 09:50 AM)Temperament Wrote: Travel Guard calls the shot is clear & "fair" enough (until if there are any disagreements with cliamant) but the clause of Exclusion is vague to me.

I am not specialist too. I captured the "EXCLUSIONS" below for reference. In simple term, the exclusion saying

-the policy will not compensate you for your mistake
-the policy will not compensate you for expenses already included in the trip. (i.e. not to sponsor your trip)
-the policy will not compensate you for expenses not approved by them (i.e. not to be "carrot-head" )
-if due to valid reason, the approval is waived, the policy will only compensate you with a fair amount, instead of expense incurred (i.e. not to be "carrot-head" )

It sound fair and square. Which part is vague?

Quote:EXCLUSIONS
We will not pay for:
1) any expenses incurred for services provided by another party for which You are
not liable to pay, or any expenses already included in the cost of a scheduled
Trip; and
2) any expenses for a service not approved and arranged by Travel Guard, or
an authorized representative of Travel Guard, unless We decide that such
expenses were necessarily incurred and for reasons beyond the control of You,
Your Relative or Travel Companion Travel Guard could not be contacted during
the emergency. In any event, We reserve the right to reimburse You only for
those expenses incurred for services which Travel Guard would have provided
under the same circumstances and up to the limit specifi ed in the Selected Plan
under Section 7.

So i suppose you will be happy to buy this Travel Guard insurance. It's not cheap. For $75 it's for a 8 day tour to part of China.
i suppose all Travel Insurance companies will have the same "wordings" to protect themselves from being "carrot head". Look like we have not much choice. We have to buy on "good faith" that they will be fair and honourable if there is a claim. (touch wood). It's very sad if a claimant has to litigate for his claims; after injury or illness during the trip.

Be fair and square, does not mean a deal

I am not sure the best deal in market now. I am not frequent traveler on my own. I had not been on holiday trip for quite a while already

Bro Temperament. Agree the 75dlr plan doesn't appear cheap, but it is a mid range plan i.e. higher coverage than the basic, and has some frills like golf-related cover, car rental excess, pet cover, etc that other cheaper plans prob won't have. So I guess if there are extras that you want covered that other cheaper plans don't offer, this would be the right plan? =)

I had been using ACE insurance bought using standard chartered credit card. anyone know if it is sufficient?
i rem that it is one of the cheapest in the market.

(22-07-2012, 04:00 PM)Muck Wrote: Bro Temperament. Agree the 75dlr plan doesn't appear cheap, but it is a mid range plan i.e. higher coverage than the basic, and has some frills like golf-related cover, car rental excess, pet cover, etc that other cheaper plans prob won't have. So I guess if there are extras that you want covered that other cheaper plans don't offer, this would be the right plan? =)

Thanks for your reminder about make sure for "Emergency Medical Evacuation" illness is covered too beside injury. That prompts me to blog about it.

(22-07-2012, 04:19 PM)funman168 Wrote: I had been using ACE insurance bought using standard chartered credit card. anyone know if it is sufficient?
i rem that it is one of the cheapest in the market.

Hi Funman, I think the only person who can ans the qn of sufficiency in any insurance policy is the buyer. He'll need to ask:
- what am I trying to protect against?
- how much protection do I need?

Seemingly simple qns but unlikely to arrive at same ans. Personally, in buying any insurance policy, I'm looking for protection against what I monetarily cannot afford to lose. Who covers also plays a part in the decision-making. Then I decide the quantum of coverage I want based on circumstances. In doing so I have transferred the risk to the insurer. This was what insurance companies were first created to do till they started spouting complicated and sometimes irrelevant (in my opinion) plans.

In travel insurance, what I must be protected for are medical evacuations as well as medical expenses overseas, for both illness and injury. This is the bottomline for me. All else are extras that I can likely afford to lose e.g. Lost bags, flight delays, etc. Then if travelling to nearby well connected countries I'd go with ntuc's cheaper plans. That's cos evacuation should not be so complicated and relatively less expensive. However, if far away ulu ulu place I'd get Chartis Travel Guard with unlimited coverage for evacuation. I understand they use international SOS who have the largest network for evacuation i.e. if these guys can't get you out prob no one will.

---

(22-07-2012, 04:36 PM)Temperament Wrote:

(22-07-2012, 04:00 PM)Muck Wrote: Bro Temperament. Agree the 75dlr plan doesn't appear cheap, but it is a mid range plan i.e. higher coverage than the basic, and has some frills like golf-related cover, car rental excess, pet cover, etc that other cheaper plans prob won't have. So I guess if there are extras that you want covered that other cheaper plans don't offer, this would be the right plan? =)

Thanks for your reminder about make sure for "Emergency Medical Evacuation" illness is covered too beside injury. That prompts me to blog about it.

Pleasure is mine. I just hope someone who reads this will gain from it.

(23-07-2012, 01:00 AM)Muck Wrote:

(22-07-2012, 04:19 PM)funman168 Wrote: I had been using ACE insurance bought using standard chartered credit card. anyone know if it is sufficient?
i rem that it is one of the cheapest in the market.

Hi Funman, I think the only person who can ans the qn of sufficiency in any insurance policy is the buyer. He'll need to ask:
- what am I trying to protect against?
- how much protection do I need?

Seemingly simple qns but unlikely to arrive at same ans. Personally, in buying any insurance policy, I'm looking for protection against what I monetarily cannot afford to lose. Who covers also plays a part in the decision-making. Then I decide the quantum of coverage I want based on circumstances. In doing so I have transferred the risk to the insurer. This was what insurance companies were first created to do till they started spouting complicated and sometimes irrelevant (in my opinion) plans.

In travel insurance, what I must be protected for are medical evacuations as well as medical expenses overseas, for both illness and injury. This is the bottomline for me. All else are extras that I can likely afford to lose e.g. Lost bags, flight delays, etc. Then if travelling to nearby well connected countries I'd go with ntuc's cheaper plans. That's cos evacuation should not be so complicated and relatively less expensive. However, if far away ulu ulu place I'd get Chartis Travel Guard with unlimited coverage for evacuation. I understand they use international SOS who have the largest network for evacuation i.e. if these guys can't get you out prob no one will.

---

(22-07-2012, 04:36 PM)Temperament Wrote:

(22-07-2012, 04:00 PM)Muck Wrote: Bro Temperament. Agree the 75dlr plan doesn't appear cheap, but it is a mid range plan i.e. higher coverage than the basic, and has some frills like golf-related cover, car rental excess, pet cover, etc that other cheaper plans prob won't have. So I guess if there are extras that you want covered that other cheaper plans don't offer, this would be the right plan? =)

Thanks for your reminder about make sure for "Emergency Medical Evacuation" illness is covered too beside injury. That prompts me to blog about it.

Pleasure is mine. I just hope someone who reads this will gain from it.

Yes truly! We are all here to learn. Shalom.