Jump to content

What does "full cost of the Trip" mean?


bUU
 Share

Recommended Posts

I haven't had much luck with the first question I asked here, but I'm game to try a second time to learn some more about this part of cruising I never thought much about in the past.

 

I keep seeing conflicting information about what "full cost" means in terms of travel insurance: Sometimes it seems to only include the non-refundable costs and sometimes I see words like, "all prepaid Trip costs that are subject to cancellation penalties or restrictions ... and also ... the cost of any subsequent arrangements ... added to Your Trip."

 

Can someone please provide some clarity? Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This includes all items that can't be refunded. Airfare is a big one.

Thanks for the reply, but isn't airfare "prepaid Trip costs that are subject to cancellation penalties or restrictions" and if so what specifically would be "the cost of any subsequent arrangements ... added to Your Trip". Or is it just word salad by way of too many lawyers?

 

I could just imagine something happens aboard ship and we have to be jetted home, and the insurance company won't pay anything because we added an excursion a few weeks before the cruise that we didn't add to the policy amount because it was refundable up to three days prior and we were willing to lose the cost of it during those three days. Is that irrational paranoia or is that a real concern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest talking to someone who knows because each insurance policy can have different requirements. We always purchase thru tripinsurancestore.com and find Steve and his staff very helpful in getting us the best coverage for our specific needs. It's just a phone call, but you will get definite answers. Good luck:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, but isn't airfare "prepaid Trip costs that are subject to cancellation penalties or restrictions" and if so what specifically would be "the cost of any subsequent arrangements ... added to Your Trip". Or is it just word salad by way of too many lawyers?

 

I could just imagine something happens aboard ship and we have to be jetted home, and the insurance company won't pay anything because we added an excursion a few weeks before the cruise that we didn't add to the policy amount because it was refundable up to three days prior and we were willing to lose the cost of it during those three days. Is that irrational paranoia or is that a real concern?

 

Why don't you call either your insurer (of the policy you have OR the one you are considering) or, preferably, some travel insurance broker such as Steve (already recommended) to ASK them specifically, for specific policies, whether your concerning expenses are included or not, or what policy to get to have the coverage of "everything you want", or perhaps why it isn't possible for some category.

 

Anonymous internet posters aren't necessarily helpful, and there's no way easily to know if what they are saying applies accurately to *your* specific situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest talking to someone who knows because each insurance policy can have different requirements.
Yes, I have (including Steve's assistant). It isn't very comforting when someone tells you verbally something different than what the written words you're reading say, such as the explicit exclusion of the word "non-refundable" as it pertains to costs added to the trip. I suppose as long as no one says that the words are to be understood as they are written all will be well.

 

Why don't you call either your insurer (of the policy you have OR the one you are considering) or, preferably, some travel insurance broker such as Steve (already recommended) to ASK them specifically, for specific policies, whether your concerning expenses are included or not, or what policy to get to have the coverage of "everything you want", or perhaps why it isn't possible for some category.
I have, as I mentioned above. What I really would like is for someone to put in writing what they're saying. I'll surely ask them to do that, but experience tells me that most would have a problem providing in writing anything other than that which was vetted by the lawyers.

 

Anonymous internet posters aren't necessarily helpful, and there's no way easily to know if what they are saying applies accurately to *your* specific situation.
Very true, though in reality contrary information is rather useful even when from anonymous sources. If no one is saying, "I believe what I was told verbally and got burned!" then that'll make me much more comfortable. Edited by bUU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have. It isn't very comforting when someone tells you verbally something different than what the written words you're reading say, such as the explicit exclusion of the word "non-refundable" as it pertains to costs added to the trip. I suppose as long as no one says that the words are to be understood as they are written all will be well.

 

I have, as I mentioned above. What I really would like is for someone to put in writing what they're saying. I'll surely ask them to do that, but experience tells me that most would have a problem providing in writing anything other than that which was vetted by the lawyers.

 

Very true, though in reality contrary information is rather useful even when from anonymous sources. If no one is saying, "I believe what I was told verbally and got burned!" then that'll make me much more comfortable.

 

We've had a variety of very specific questions for Steve, about whether (or "how") a particular situation would - or would not - be covered.

 

He has in a few instances contacted the insurer for information about the specific concern, and then gotten back to us.

 

And yes, he has backed it up in writing if we wanted, by citing the specific clause/section/sentence/etc., in the policy, and also telling us how "our" situation would be covered.

 

I'm not sure what else anyone could want or expect.

 

And in one case, when we made a related claim (not small), it was paid with no arguments.

(We were surprised it was covered, but upon reading the "fine print" more carefully, with this situation in mind, we could see that it should be - and it was.)

 

And we wouldn't feel more comfortable simply because some other anonymous posters did NOT say "... and we got burned". Who knows if the situations are equivalent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I'll expect to "get it in writing" when I purchase the insurance. Thanks.

 

The "in writing" was all IN the policy.

 

It was just a matter of finding the specific clause that was relevant, which isn't always obvious.

 

Also, some coverages have been changing, in a good way (for once!), at least for the policy we usually get.

 

And Steve was a great help in showing us what coverage did apply to our concern.

 

And of course, policies differ, so "relatives" can include different people, as can "traveling companions", etc.

 

With a very, very elderly MIL, we've started using CFAR for some trips, because if "something happened", we WOULD want to return, even if it didn't fit the details of the regular coverage.

(For example, if she just got really worried and "thought something was wrong", we'd return. Thus far, she's the opposite: "Don't worry about me, I'll be fine." And that's why we'd return if she "got worried" because that isn't 'normal'. And indeed, she instructed her assisted living facility NOT to contact us when she fell when we were out of the country. WRONG - and we've "spoken with her about this" and firmly. We also moved her quickly to a different facility! It turned out she cracked her neck, and was *VERY* lucky. Time in the hospital and then in rehab, and she's back to normal. It could have been so different.... Tricky with very elderly or sick relatives...)

 

But yes, it is all in writing, and when we knew where to look, it was clear that it was (or wasn't) "covered".

One situation that wasn't covered now is, with a nice change in the coverage, apparently a few months ago. Steve pointed that out to us as well, and that was really good to know.

 

There are also a few "gotchas", and he's pointed those out to us also, when we discuss hypotheticals.

 

He made a very good "catch" shortly after we 'found him'. We had to cancel the first trip where we had insurance (a big claim).

We hadn't waited for DH to be "fit to travel" before trying to insure the next trip.

He caught that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "in writing" was all IN the policy.
This isn't. Becky explained verbally how it "should" work, but she acknowledged that the words in the policy could have been clearer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't. Becky explained verbally how it "should" work, but she acknowledged that the words in the policy could have been clearer.

 

Well, then I'd be a bit worried, too.

 

How something "should work"... that's not going to go far if push comes to shove (e.g., a claim is denied).

 

 

However, I do agree that many of the clauses are not worded well, but... when we've looked more closely, it was always clear if something was or was not "covered".

If it "wasn't", we wouldn't count on it...

 

But thus far, there has been wording that did in fact 'work', without ambiguity, even if the grammar/syntax wasn't the clearest.

(As with legalese, there can be specific meanings that differ from "everyday use", and that can complicate understanding, to put it mildly.)

 

I'd bump it up and ask for Steve, and have him answer, and if necessary, contact the insurer for a definitive answer.

 

His associates are great, and they know their stuff, too; we've relied upon several of them the past few years. But for anything "tricky", we get an answer from Steve himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both brokers I spoke with seemed reticent to help me determine the total cost amount by way of them asking questions and me answering those questions, a level of service that would make me feel more comfortable with the service being offered. By the same token, I can understand the reticence: It's a trap: A broker will be best advised to CYA and therefore include in amounts if there is any possibility that the amount should be included, while the insured would be best served by including only the amounts that are to be included.

 

I hate insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both brokers I spoke with seemed reticent to help me determine the total cost amount by way of them asking questions and me answering those questions, a level of service that would make me feel more comfortable with the service being offered. By the same token, I can understand the reticence: It's a trap: A broker will be best advised to CYA and therefore include in amounts if there is any possibility that the amount should be included, while the insured would be best served by including only the amounts that are to be included.

 

I hate insurance.

 

All I can say is that we've asked very detailed questions such as "if we do this, would it be covered? What about if we do that?"

And we get *answers*, such as "If you do *that*, in that time frame, then no, it would not be covered. But if you do it in *this* time frame, then yes." Or if you pay in advance, rather than "guaranteeing" something with a charge card.

 

But we have indeed gotten very specific answers, and in a couple of cases where the wording worried us, Steve did contact the insurer and confirm that there wasn't any "funny business/wiggle room"; it was or it was not covered...

There were a few times we weren't pleased, but we had unambiguous answers.

And one of the major recent changes did away with one of the "situations" we had been unhappy about.

 

As for "the amounts that should be included", the way the policies are written MIGHT require insuring more than one would have wanted, but that is how the policy works. We don't get to decide the "terms". We get to decide to select that policy or not, however the terms are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is that we've asked very detailed questions such as ...
That reminds me. I'm an expert on several things, but I'm not an insurance expert, so I don't trust that I am even remotely qualified to know what questions to ask. I would have thought that experts (like the brokers) would be the ones asking questions (not ignorant neophytes like me).

 

And in speaking with one of the brokers I got a bad feeling. The broker told me something, and then I voiced what I figured was a dumb thought based on what the broker told me, and the broker then told me that that was not a dumb thought. (This was about pre-existing condition lookback, and my dumb thought was that perhaps I would be better off waiting that amount of time after a scheduled (final) doctor visit before purchasing the insurance to avoid a pre-existing condition exclusion. My dumb guess was right, but if I hadn't voiced it then I would have purchased the insurance this week and effectively lost coverage I didn't need to lose. (Nothing is non-refundable yet.)

 

As for "the amounts that should be included", the way the policies are written MIGHT require insuring more than one would have wanted, but that is how the policy works. We don't get to decide the "terms". We get to decide to select that policy or not, however the terms are.
Don't you agree, though, that it would be dirty pool to have all the T&Cs say total cost is $X for the core parts of the policy (the trip cancellation, the trip interruption, financial default, etc.), but have the pre-existing conditions waiver nullified if you didn't take out the policy for a total cost of $X+$Y.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me. I'm an expert on several things, but I'm not an insurance expert, so I don't trust that I am even remotely qualified to know what questions to ask. I would have thought that experts (like the brokers) would be the ones asking questions (not ignorant neophytes like me).

 

And in speaking with one of the brokers I got a bad feeling. The broker told me something, and then I voiced what I figured was a dumb thought based on what the broker told me, and the broker then told me that that was not a dumb thought. (This was about pre-existing condition lookback, and my dumb thought was that perhaps I would be better off waiting that amount of time after a scheduled (final) doctor visit before purchasing the insurance to avoid a pre-existing condition exclusion. My dumb guess was right, but if I hadn't voiced it then I would have purchased the insurance this week and effectively lost coverage I didn't need to lose. (Nothing is non-refundable yet.)

 

Don't you agree, though, that it would be dirty pool to have all the T&Cs say total cost is $X for the core parts of the policy (the trip cancellation, the trip interruption, financial default, etc.), but have the pre-existing conditions waiver nullified if you didn't take out the policy for a total cost of $X+$Y.

 

It depends upon the terms of the policy, of course.

 

It sort of sounds like you don't like the part of the "waiver" that often requires insuring ALL payments, even those that are refundable?

 

If the "core" parts don't include that waiver, then... sure, there could be more costs such that the waiver is included, or such.

 

We may not like all of the terms (or think the price is high), but it's our choice to get that policy or not, or some other policy... or none at all.

 

We ask for the price of the FULL policy, with allof the coverages that we want, and that's that.

 

 

We then either pay (or pay in stages as we make additional payments, as that's how our policies work thus far), or decide not to.

(We've occasionally, rarely, taken out a lower priced policy without all of the coverages, but usually we don't do that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sort of sounds like you don't like the part of the "waiver" that often requires insuring ALL payments, even those that are refundable?
Precisely, especially, since it is not clear that that is actually what it requires.

 

Printed wording doesn't overcome the fact that the wording is poor English. I don't know much about insurance but I know about operations management and compliance, and I know that there is no chance of consistency when the terms are written in poor English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely, especially, since it is not clear that that is actually what it requires.

 

 

Printed wording doesn't overcome the fact that the wording is poor English.

 

Hmmm...

 

We've understood this (that including pre-existing conditions required insuring ALL trip payments, refundable or not) from our very first travel insurance policy, several years ago.

I don't remember being surprised about that.

I know that we've tried to "guarantee" hotel payments (until arrival or the card is charged) rather than pre-paying, when possible.

In cases when we actually want to have those hotel payments included, we've gone ahead and had the hotel bill us, even though they didn't require that.

 

In two cases, we had to force a hotel to bill us rather than hold the reservation as "guaranteed" so that we could start the count. (What if a medical condition flared up later? Then we couldn't even start the coverage within the 10-20 days, because one of us wouldn't be "fit to travel"! We almost got caught by this, but Steve caught it because he knew we had a large claim to file based upon a medical emergency. So he asked if DH was NOW "medically able to travel" and DH wasn't. So we got our cruise deposit back, and waited a few months until physician gave us a *letter* stating that DH was "medically able to travel as he pleased" or similar wording. That evening, we made travel plans, and started the insurance :) )

 

But I don't know if *all* such policies work that way. What I know is that the two insurers we consider both do have that requirement.

 

This is why we *always* recommend that people CALL, and NOT just read the online summaries, which can't possibly cover the entire policy, for all of the policies that are listed.

And why we get a quote for the full policy, with all coverages we want already included.

 

I don't quite remember if we learned it (back in mid 2013) by reading, but my guess (knowing me!) is that I would have called and gone over everything I could think of.

I know that Steve did ask some "leading questions" to try to elicit any "issues", such as whether pre-existing conditions might be a concern, or evacuation, or... a variety of things.

 

(Over the past few years, I've come to learn a lot more about travel insurance than I ever could have dreamed even existed. And there are still occasional situations that we need to ask about... But Steve is on his toes. The more he knows about one's situation, the better he can discuss the policies that would be most suitable. We've tried here - on CC and elsewhere online - to share some of the things we've learned, especially the things that might not be so obvious. But the most important thing is to read the *entire* policy, and ask questions about specific wording if necessary, and make sure that it covers what you think/hope it does.

There are so many complaints, here and elsewhere, that arose because the initial terms of the policy never included what the person "assumed", or they didn't ask exactly which family members are included. In some cases, people don't realize that it is "insurance" and NOT "bill payment", in that one must pay first, and then submit a claim for reimbursement. That *can* be tricky. I've seen a sign in one overseas ER that stated they would "only" accept guarantees from "known travel insurance companies". I didn't ask what/who that included, or how it worked, as we were easily able to charge the costs and get reimbursed when we got home. But if that were to be a whopper of a bill... we do have high credit limits, which we keep in the back of our minds, just in case... I don't know, and hope we never have to find out, what an insurer can or will do to "help" with a huge medical bill overseas if it exceeds credit limits!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...

 

We've understood this (that including pre-existing conditions required insuring ALL trip payments, refundable or not) from our very first travel insurance policy, several years ago.

. That's not what Steve's associate told me.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. That's not what Steve's associate told me.

 

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

Well, I guess if there wasn't enough discussion about 'whether' there were concerns about pre-exisiting conditions? I don't remember how it came up for the first policy.

(Many people argue against that coverage, but for some people, us included, it's essential.)

 

But this is different from what you were originally stating about the wording being "unclear".

 

Also: Please keep in mind that we do NOT know how "ALL" coverages with pre-existing condition exclusion waivers work. Maybe there ARE some that do not require that refundable costs be included (??).

The two companies we've worked with both do, for the specific policies we get.

And from what I've read here on CC, that's common. But it might not be *all* such policies...

 

Anyway, just ask for Steve from now on. If he's busy, he'll call back, although maybe not instantly.

 

Good luck; hope things work out better.

 

(If you have a serious "complaint", then do mention it to him. I know they really do try to do a good job, get it "right", give good service, etc. He'd want to know so they could discuss how to handle it better, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess if there wasn't enough discussion about 'whether' there were concerns about pre-exisiting conditions?

No. It was an explicit part of the conversation. What she told me it's different than what you're saying.

 

It wasn't unclear because of a lack of understanding. It now appears that it was unclear because it is unclear.

 

Why not just call and speak directly to Steve to get the information you want?

I think Steve would be a little bit concerned about his associates giving information different from what he would give. If I do get different information from Steve then that would result in me having to little confidence in the brokerage overall to trust buying the insurance there.

 

What I'm hoping is that Steve's associate was correct (that what Geezer understood is not correct) and Steve confirms that.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It was an explicit part of the conversation. What she told me it's different than what you're saying.

 

It wasn't unclear because of a lack of understanding. It now appears that it was unclear because it is unclear.

 

 

I think Steve would be a little bit concerned about his associates giving information different from what he would give. If I do get different information from Steve then that would result in me having to little confidence in the brokerage overall to trust buying the insurance there.

 

What I'm hoping is that Steve's associate was correct (that what Geezer understood is not correct) and Steve confirms that.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

Let's see...

You start this by complaining that you weren't given good information.

 

And now... you are stating that you hope that what WE "understood" is "not correct", and the information that you did *not* trust is correct?

 

Fine.

 

Sorry to have wasted your time. And ours.

 

Call Steve or not. Apparently it won't matter what he says, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started this by saying I didn't understand what I was reading. I was then told to call Steve's company and ask. I did and was told something. You then said the opposite was true. Wouldn't you be concerned?

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see...

You start this by complaining that you weren't given good information.

 

And now... you are stating that you hope that what WE "understood" is "not correct", and the information that you did *not* trust is correct?

 

Fine.

 

Sorry to have wasted your time. And ours.

 

Call Steve or not. Apparently it won't matter what he says, anyway.

 

Agree with GeezerCouple. You're not satisfied so why not just call a different broker to answer your questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely doing that... anyway. I also comparison shop between different brokers. The two I'm checking offer different sets of insurers. Of course, so far Steve hasn't contradicting his associate, so I have no good reason to be dissatisfied with his brokerage yet. The associate only contradicted Geezer. Perhaps my earlier comments reflected me putting too much credence on what Geezer posted, which matched the way I read the poorly written words, but conflicted with what Steve's associate said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...