Saint wrote:ksl wrote:To be quite sure, your policy should be clear black & white if it covers any natural disasters, and war. If it doesn't state clearly you will not be covered.
If it states clearly and the company is not paying out, you must file a claim against them, the more people they say no too, saves them money!
Insurance companies will not pay out if they can weasel their way out of not paying, they are really parasites, that just suck all the time.
Wise up is the best thing to do and read the small print. To be covered for an act of god, is an additional premium in many insurance companies.
To be fair most of the major players are honouring legitimate cancelation and curtailment coverage loss claims and some Insurers I know are also paying Ex Gratia payment where coverage is excluded.
As soon as a couple of Insurers publicly say they will honour claims all the other will usually follow. No Insurer want to be seen as the bad boys and get negative publicity.
I will agree with you 100%, in this case, because their would be a great deal of bad publicity!
Unfortunately, with no backing from the majority, the occasional claim from Joe Blogs would be scrutinized for a way out of paying, I have had my own dealings of unfairness, because insurance companies are not at all transparent!
The salesman however will do what it takes to make the sale, and we learn from past experience, that quite a few insurance salesman are not trustworthy with the commission being the prime target, yes I am generalising, though i am well aware of it, and can now handle my own, when it comes to dealing with salesmen. Though many unfortunates, believe they are covered because they take the word of the salesman.
That is my main point, if its not even transparent to the salesman, how can it be transparent to the end user, and in many cases, when they say they will find out from the head office, its a yes, but not in writing. So dealing with unscrupulous salesmen is the problem, not the insurance company from my point of view.
Has anyone had a car written off and had the true market value, that it has been insured for, reimbursed? I doubt it very much! So the actual insurance premium is based on many statistical factors, that are false.
Example would be the housing estate where i lived, one of the highest crime areas of the city, but the lowest claim rate on insurance, so it was a cheaper area for those willing to pay insurance, problem was no one could afford it. Even the car insurance came out cheaper, because only a few claims are made from a few people, the majority driving without insurance.
Risks that don't make much sense at all, to penalise experienced, travellers and drivers. 3 year residential status is required to get cheaper insurance, because the driver that drives in different countries is a very high risk, yet has the most driving experience. Even the no claims bonus is another rip off
I'm sorry to say that being a driver with all licences including bus and HGV 1, that I have to pay 3 times more, than the average person in UK to drive, becuase they say I am a higher risk, yet accident free for 35 years.
This is policy that doesn't make sense to me, I am in the minority of drivers that travel a lot driving on both sides of the road with a lot of experience so I do find it unjust that I should pay higher risk premium.
