nitram

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:04:35 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >>Hertz car hire insurance states explicitly that you are not insured if
    >>driving when drunk
    >Am I to take it, then, that if I am hit by a drunk Hertz customer that
    >my only recourse is against the driver, who might be impecunious?

I wondered the same, when I read their terms and conditions.

Hilary

    > >Just try not to injure yourself or lose anything while drinking.
    > >Everything else is covered.
    >
    > Except all the things not covered if any of the party has had a serious
    > illness, ever.

That comes under pre-existing conditions. Most insurance companies only
care if it's 1) recent (i.e. within 2 years) or 2) ongoing (e.g. cancer).
If you went to the doctor 3 years ago to have a mole removed, they don't
care.

Hilary

JohnT

"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >>Hertz car hire insurance states explicitly that you are not insured if
    >>driving when drunk
    > Am I to take it, then, that if I am hit by a drunk Hertz customer that
    > my only recourse is against the driver, who might be impecunious?
    > --
    > PB

Only if you survive!

JohnT

Frank F. Matthews

It's interesting. While most medical policies are invalidated by
alcohol abuse the restriction does not appear to apply to the evacuation
procedure.

[email protected] wrote:

    > On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:35:12 -0400, "Miss L. Toe"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Hilary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]...
    >>>>so next time i go on a summer ibizia holiday it dont really matter if i
    >>have
    >>>>insurance or not....... if it get invalidated then i may as well save my
    >>£40
    >>>>and not buy it.
    >>If you get drunk and then have an accident then yes, most medical
    >>insurance will be invalid. Your travel insurance is still useful in case
    >>you: need to cancel/postpone/return early (due to illness/death of
    >>you/close family member/person you were travelling with), in case you lose
    >>your passport/tickets, in case you are mugged, in case you miss your
    >>flight due to no fault of your own, etc.
    >>Just try not to injure yourself or lose anything while drinking.
    >>Everything else is covered.
    >>Hilary
    >>But in reality most people can afford to cover such losses themselves. It's
    >>like taking insurance cover for your washing machine Its foolish you will
    >>spend more on premiums than you ever recover in claims (unless you are very
    >>very unlucky).
    >>Medical Insurance is (IMO) the only reason to take out travel insurance.
    >>And if you cant have a drink whilst travelling.......
    >>IMO they should specify limits on how much drinking you are allowed to do.
    >
    >
    > The limit is explicit if you injure yourself as a result of drinking
    > you are not covered.

lysander

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:34:44 +0100, Hilary <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >> >Just try not to injure yourself or lose anything while drinking.
    >> >Everything else is covered.
    >>
    >> Except all the things not covered if any of the party has had a serious
    >> illness, ever.
    >That comes under pre-existing conditions. Most insurance companies only
    >care if it's 1) recent (i.e. within 2 years) or 2) ongoing (e.g. cancer).
    >If you went to the doctor 3 years ago to have a mole removed, they don't
    >care.


And if you tell them about it before you go they'll often cover it for
a little extra premium, depending on how serious it is.

Keith Willshaw

"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >>Hertz car hire insurance states explicitly that you are not insured if
    >>driving when drunk
    > Am I to take it, then, that if I am hit by a drunk Hertz customer that
    > my only recourse is against the driver, who might be impecunious?

No.

The rental companies are required to provide the third
part insurance required by the state in which the car
is rented. They cannot abridge the terms of that cover.
That said some states have pretty poor statutory
requirements for 3rd party cover.

Keith

Padraig Breathnach

"Keith Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> [email protected] wrote:
    >>>Hertz car hire insurance states explicitly that you are not insured if
    >>>driving when drunk
    >> Am I to take it, then, that if I am hit by a drunk Hertz customer that
    >> my only recourse is against the driver, who might be impecunious?
    >No.
    >The rental companies are required to provide the third
    >part insurance required by the state in which the car
    >is rented. They cannot abridge the terms of that cover.
    >That said some states have pretty poor statutory
    >requirements for 3rd party cover.
That's encouraging. But I'll continue to be a careful road user, just
in case...

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Roland Perry

In message
<[email protected]>, at
17:34:44 on Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Hilary <[email protected]>
remarked:
    >> >Just try not to injure yourself or lose anything while drinking.
    >> >Everything else is covered.
    >> Except all the things not covered if any of the party has had a serious
    >> illness, ever.
    >That comes under pre-existing conditions. Most insurance companies only
    >care if it's 1) recent (i.e. within 2 years) or 2) ongoing (e.g. cancer).
    >If you went to the doctor 3 years ago to have a mole removed, they don't
    >care.

I've seen policies that won't cover anything (not even lost luggage) if
any of the party has ever had cancer!

The Post Office one (which is topical) says:

"You must be able to make the following declaration for yourself, anyone
travelling with you, a close relative or business associate who the trip
will depend on" [otherwise we won't] "cover any claim arising from that
condition unless we have agreed in writing to cover it".

a) No insured person is waiting for an operation or post operative
check-up, any investigation or results or any other hospital treatment
or consultation (other than where you go to hospital for check-ups for a
stable condition, at regular intervals which have been arranged
beforehand.)

b) No insured person has ever received treatment for any of the
following:

* A stroke
* Any form of cancer, leukaemia or tumour
* A transplant
* Any heart problem
* Dialysis

c) No insured person has received treatment, other than regular
medication, in the last 12 months for any blood disorder, breathing
problem, psychiatric illness or dementia.

d) No insured person has been seen by a specialist in the last three
months (other than where you go to hospital for check ups for a stable
condition, at regular intervals which have been arranged beforehand) or
been admitted to a hospital overnight.

e) No insured person has been given a terminal prognosis by a registered
doctor.

<with arrangements where they might quote an increased premium if you
consult with them>
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

In message <[email protected]>, at 15:47:18 on
Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Lansbury <[email protected]> remarked:
    >>>>And the Telegraph also has elements of both:
    >>>and it also says her insurance was invalidated because she had been drinking.
    >>What it says is: "She was also told insurance firms would not pay
    >>because she had been drinking before the fall."
    >I quote from my copy of The Telegraph, (2nd of 4 paragraphs)
    >"Sarah Webster 18 of Cricklade, Wilts, fractured both thighs, her wrists and
    >skull when she fell from her hotel balcony but invalidated her insurance
    >because she had been drinking"

Ah, more detail in the printed one than online. Nevertheless, just
because it's printed in the paper doesn't make it true. Just like it's
no longer always true 'if the BBC said it':

"She had no insurance cover ... Medics also informed her that
even if she had taken out additional cover, insurance firms
would not have paid up because she had been drinking before her
fall."

Nevertheless, the Telegraph's story is becoming the consensus now.
--
Roland Perry

Hilary

    > >> >Just try not to injure yourself or lose anything while drinking.
    > >> >Everything else is covered.
    > >>
    > >> Except all the things not covered if any of the party has had a serious
    > >> illness, ever.
    > >
    > >That comes under pre-existing conditions. Most insurance companies only
    > >care if it's 1) recent (i.e. within 2 years) or 2) ongoing (e.g. cancer).
    > >If you went to the doctor 3 years ago to have a mole removed, they don't
    > >care.
    >
    > I've seen policies that won't cover anything (not even lost luggage) if
    > any of the party has ever had cancer!
    >
    > The Post Office one (which is topical) says:
    >
    > "You must be able to make the following declaration for yourself, anyone
    > travelling with you, a close relative or business associate who the trip
    > will depend on" [otherwise we won't] "cover any claim arising from that
    > condition unless we have agreed in writing to cover it".

The last part is the important bit. If you had skin cancer 10 yrs ago and
no recurrence they will probably still insure you. Equally, if it's
recent, they may offer you the option of either paying an additional
premium or excluding the pre-existing condition from cover.

When we've called for customers before, as long as they were stable, their
condition hadn't changed in the last 5 yrs and their medication hadn't
changed in 2 yrs, they were usually covered. Sometimes (depending on the
condition) there wasn't anything extra to pay.

Hilary

Frank F. Matthews

Keith Willshaw wrote:

    > "Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>[email protected] wrote:

    >>>Hertz car hire insurance states explicitly that you are not insured if
    >>>driving when drunk
    >>Am I to take it, then, that if I am hit by a drunk Hertz customer that
    >>my only recourse is against the driver, who might be impecunious?

    > No.
    >
    > The rental companies are required to provide the third
    > part insurance required by the state in which the car
    > is rented. They cannot abridge the terms of that cover.
    > That said some states have pretty poor statutory
    > requirements for 3rd party cover.
    > Keith

I suspect that the rental company would still be liable for additional
damages. If your insurance doesn't cover a claim you are not in the
clear. Likely everyone around would get sued.

nitram

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:50:51 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Keith Willshaw wrote:
    >> "Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >>>[email protected] wrote:
    >>>>Hertz car hire insurance states explicitly that you are not insured if
    >>>>driving when drunk
    >>>Am I to take it, then, that if I am hit by a drunk Hertz customer that
    >>>my only recourse is against the driver, who might be impecunious?
    >> No.
    >>
    >> The rental companies are required to provide the third
    >> part insurance required by the state in which the car
    >> is rented. They cannot abridge the terms of that cover.
    >> That said some states have pretty poor statutory
    >> requirements for 3rd party cover.
    >> Keith
    >I suspect that the rental company would still be liable for additional
    >damages. If your insurance doesn't cover a claim you are not in the
    >clear. Likely everyone around would get sued.

What's the situation if a hire car is stolen and then involved in an
accident?

Roland Perry

In message
<[email protected]>, at
21:45:02 on Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Hilary <[email protected]>
remarked:
    >> The Post Office one (which is topical) says:
    >> "You must be able to make the following declaration for yourself, anyone
    >> travelling with you, a close relative or business associate who the trip
    >> will depend on" [otherwise we won't] "cover any claim arising from that
    >> condition unless we have agreed in writing to cover it".
    >The last part is the important bit. If you had skin cancer 10 yrs ago and
    >no recurrence they will probably still insure you. Equally, if it's
    >recent, they may offer you the option of either paying an additional
    >premium or excluding the pre-existing condition from cover.
    >When we've called for customers before, as long as they were stable, their
    >condition hadn't changed in the last 5 yrs and their medication hadn't
    >changed in 2 yrs, they were usually covered. Sometimes (depending on the
    >condition) there wasn't anything extra to pay.

And other policies aren't as flexible. Such is the marketplace. It's
also a bit intrusive for you to have to know relatives' and colleagues'
medical conditions (if you want to benefit from the cancellation clause
should they fall ill or die). But at least they don't ban relatives and
colleagues from indulging in extreme sports!
--
Roland Perry

Hilary

    > >> The Post Office one (which is topical) says:
    > >>
    > >> "You must be able to make the following declaration for yourself, anyone
    > >> travelling with you, a close relative or business associate who the trip
    > >> will depend on" [otherwise we won't] "cover any claim arising from that
    > >> condition unless we have agreed in writing to cover it".
    > >
    > >The last part is the important bit. If you had skin cancer 10 yrs ago and
    > >no recurrence they will probably still insure you. Equally, if it's
    > >recent, they may offer you the option of either paying an additional
    > >premium or excluding the pre-existing condition from cover.
    > >
    > >When we've called for customers before, as long as they were stable, their
    > >condition hadn't changed in the last 5 yrs and their medication hadn't
    > >changed in 2 yrs, they were usually covered. Sometimes (depending on the
    > >condition) there wasn't anything extra to pay.
    >
    > And other policies aren't as flexible. Such is the marketplace. It's
    > also a bit intrusive for you to have to know relatives' and colleagues'
    > medical conditions (if you want to benefit from the cancellation clause
    > should they fall ill or die). But at least they don't ban relatives and
    > colleagues from indulging in extreme sports!

You don't need to ask them for a medical history - the insurance companies
say "If you could reasonably have known..." So if you *know* that your
colleague has been very ill/has a recurring illness then you'd need to
declare it. If there's something but they haven't told anyone about it,
then there's no reasonable way you could have known.

Hilary

Roland Perry

In message
<[email protected]>, at
09:11:45 on Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Hilary <[email protected]>
remarked:
    >You don't need to ask them for a medical history - the insurance companies
    >say "If you could reasonably have known..."

One size doesn't fit all.

The Post Office says: "You must be able to make the following
declaration for yourself, anyone travelling with you, a close relative
or business associate who the trip will depend on."

No test of reasonableness.
--
Roland Perry