Saw this on the beeb website, many of us will ride a motorbike at one time or another in LOS or wherever we go on holiday, but it seems unless youve a motorbike licence you should read the small print of your travel insurance.

Especially those buying last minute insurance at a Boots store at the airport.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7479520.stm

British standards are being applied unfairly overseas as a basis for rejecting travel insurance claims, according to a consumer watchdog.

The Consumer Action Group (CAG) wants companies to be clearer with customers when selling travel insurance.

It cites the case of a 19-year-old who crashed a moped in Vietnam but his insurer refused to pay out.

The insurance firm involved said the policy "clearly stated" that the driver must have a full UK motorcycle licence.

The warning from the CAG comes as millions of gap year students and schoolchildren prepare to take their holidays this summer.

The group has highlighted the example of gap year student James Pinnington, 19, who crashed his moped in Vietnam in May breaking both his legs.

Although James had what he thought was comprehensive travel insurance and a full driving licence and was wearing a helmet, his insurer refused to honour the claim because he did not have a full UK Class A motorcycle licence.

A licence is not required in Vietnam to ride some smaller mopeds on public thoroughfares, and helmets only became mandatory in December 2007.

James's father Chris had to pay £25,000 to transport his son from a remote village in Vietnam to London via Bangkok.

The policy, which was purchased from Boots Gap Year Travel Insurance, stipulates that a full UK motorcycle licence would be required on page 13 of a 64 page document containing all the terms and conditions.

However, the Consumer Action Group said this condition should have been contained in the "Key Facts" booklet.

“We consider that it was unwise and probably unfair that this important requirement was omitted from the ‘Key Facts' booklet (in the terms and conditions) and we believe that Mr Pinnington may have suffered as a result,” according to Marc Gander from the CAG.

“We consider that the provision of a "Key Facts" booklet and then the omission of important key facts amounts to a misinformation.”

850,000 claims

In a statement, Boots said: "Our Gap Year Insurance policy wording clearly states that a claim will not be paid 'arising from using a two-wheeled motor vehicle as a driver or passenger if you are not wearing a crash helmet and the driver is not a holder of a full UK category A motorcycle licence'."

Last year more than 20 million people took out some form of travel insurance in Britain - of which just over 4% (850,000) claims were made. The Association of British Insurers denies using "small print" to avoid paying claims.

“Insurance companies pay out when genuine claims are made,” according to Malcolm Tarling from the ABI. “We don't look at ways not to pay.

"The last thing we want is to leave people high and dry with medical injuries. Last year we paid out £200m for people who fell ill overseas.

"The key thing to do is avoid getting into difficulties is to read the Terms and Conditions. If you are unclear, talk to your insurance company or broker.”

Edited June 29, 200818 yr by boiledegg

“We consider that it was unwise and probably unfair that this important requirement was omitted from the ‘Key Facts' booklet (in the terms and conditions) and we believe that Mr Pinnington may have suffered as a result,” according to Marc Gander from the CAG"

“We consider that the provision of a "Key Facts" booklet and then the omission of important key facts amounts to a misinformation.”

Even if the requirement was put in the Key facts booklet....would it have stopped Mr Pinnington from riding the motor bike ???....think not...result would have been the same...

Not a big fan of insurance companies generally....but you can see their point...

A fact is, that around the world, the most cheated organizations are:

1. the Revenue Departments (no one like to pay Tax and try any way to avoid to do so!)

2. Insurance Companies (starting with "extending" the claims and ending while try to claim none existing "accidents" and others!)

An other fact is, that most of the humans never reading the full contents of an contract which they going to sign.

Cheers.

Please bear in mind, to ride a motorcycle in Thailand you need an International

Driving Permit, which in turn means you need a full licence back in your home country.

Without an IDP it is unlikely that any Thai insurance company will pay out

and you could end up with a very large bill and being held in Thailand until it is paid.

I wonder why people on holiday overseas think they are immune to the law,

and the dictates of common sense.

"Although James had what he thought was comprehensive travel insurance and a full driving licence and was wearing a helmet, his insurer refused to honour the claim because he did not have a full UK Class A motorcycle licence."

So, in fact he did not have a "full driving license", and from what I'm reading, most likely would not have been allowed to ride a motorcycle in the UK.

Besides that, what he should have had is an International Driving Permit (ahh, but that would have shown he wasn't permitted to drive motorcycles).

I guess a question for the lawyers is, was he driving a type of motorcycle that the Vietnamese gov't doesn't require a licence for ? Or was he in fact actually driving something he should have had a licence for ? (I guess the question would depend on whether the lawyer was acting for the Insurance company or the plaintiff)

Does anyone actually think that someone is going to read 64 pages of "fine print", often written in "lawyer speak" that usually requires another lawyer to decipher ?

I'm sure the insurance company could also argue that it would defeat the purpose of a "Key Facts" booklet, if it included all 64 pages of the terms and conditions. I'm sure pretty much all 64 pages are going to contain "Key Facts" for one situation or another.

And as Tomkagai pointed out, it's unlikely the lad would have read it anyways.

Suspect this whole issue is more to do with with Mr Pinnington being p*ssed that he had to fork over GDP K25 to repatriate his son....and trying to blame someone...once again somebody not taking responsibility for their actions

As regards the getting an answer from the lawyers the simple answer is he agree to a set of terms and conditions and signed a legally binding document under UK law, and couldnt be bother to reading the T&C attached set by the UK company, if he had the required license then he would have been paid out.

If he had taken out insurance in Vietnam, with a local company (if there is such a thing), and seeing there is no requirement for a license in Vietnam then he would have been paid out by the Vietnam company..

Maybe stating the obvious here...