Travel and Medical Insurance Exclusions - Terrorist Attacks etc

[Overcome]

As a result of Monday's bomb tragedy and the number of people (locals and visitors) injured or killed, this has made me curious about how insurance companies would treat a claim arising from an incident like this under the terms and exclusions for typical policies - travel insurance, health/medical insurance, personal accident insurance and life insurance.

This resulted in me downloading a dozen or more full policy terms and conditions from a range of well known insurance companies - Thailand registered, and others registered in Hong Kong, UK, Australia, the US and 'Offshore'.

Life insurance cover seems quite straightforward and other than an exclusion for suicide inside the first year or so, it seems that you are in most cases covered for death by any cause or under any circumstances.

But for travel, health and PA covers things are not so simple and there are a whole basket of things you are NOT covered for ... like claims arising from riding a motorcycle without a helmet, acquiring sexually transmitted diseases, reckless behaviour like having sex without a helmet on, or having sex on a motorcycle whether helmeted or not, having sex with multiple helmets, and so forth.

There are many different types of wordings and in many cases the interpretation very easily could be that a claim wold not be paid if you were a victim of something like this bomb - and I would be very interested to hear from 'offficial/knowledgeable' sources within the insurance industry exactly how these things are interpreted.

• firstly, it is quite common to see an exclusion for claims arising from a location or an event that fits under terms like war or warlike activities (whether war is declared or not). The definitions vary from policy to policy but I would like to hear it straight whether Monday's bombing in Bangkok would be considered war, warlike activity, etc - in which case the insurer would decline the claim
• then there are numerous additional exemption terms that differ from one policy to the next. Terms like insurrection, civil disobedience, riot, acts of terrorism etc. It seems to me (but would like this verified) that the interpretation of these terms is pretty broad and if it's the insurance company making their own decision then an incident like Monday could be lumped under quite a number of exemption clauses
• then in a few cases I came across some quite disturbing exemption phrases and these rules out the insurer being responsible for paying a claim as a result of political upheavals - whether lawful or unlawful - such as a revolution, coup d'etat, or political power struggles that involve more than just a few grumpy questions in parliament. In some cases 'martial law' was specifically mentioned as an exemption clause and given Thailand is currently still in a state of martial law I guess the only conclusion would be that policies from those companies are effectively worthless in Thailand
• in the case of some exemption clauses for travel insurance they were triggered if the claim occurred as a result of the traveller going to a country or region that their home country has issued a 'do not travel' notice. Taking an Australian example I found that the Australian Government has a 'do not travel' notice (as opposed to a number of warnings or suggestions to reconsider your travel plans) for Thailand's three most southerly Provinces. I wonder how many Australian clients of this insurance company are unaware of this fine print and travel to or through these areas in the mistaken impression they were covered?

One thing that comes out of this very clearly is when it comes to insurance of this nature - don't make any assumptions and check out the terms very carefully. It's worrying that in many cases well known insurance companies don't actually provide their detailed terms to prospective customers and you may only find out about what's not covered after you have purchased the policy. Insurers reassuringly say in most countries there is a cooling off period where you can get your money back if the policy doesn't match what the agent promised you ... but that's really not a great solution and I would be inclined to the view that if a company doesn't post its full terms and conditions so you can make an informed decision before you buy, then they are probably hiding something and I would go elsewhere.

I know many people will have strongly held views on these issues they would love to share totally irrespective of the facts (and I guarantee despite this subtle sarcasm will find it impossible to resist the urge to share their lack of knowledge) but what I would really like to hear from on these questions is an identified individual such as an insurance company or reinsurance company CEO/regional/country head who is in a position to provide some authoritative answers and doesn't want to hide behind the cloak of anonymity.