Impact of drone activity on HYP insurance companies

[Bouleversee]

Does anyone know which, if any, HYP insurance companies do travel insurance and whether it is likely that the suspensions at Gatwick are likely to lead to significant compensation payouts to travellers? I ask because I heard Chris Grayling suggest that travellers would be compensated under their travel insurance policies, possibly a drop in the ocean in the great scheme of things. I wonder how they would quantify having your Christmas completely wrecked but I won't drone on about it.

[Dod101]

I am taking a trip to the Far East at the end of January and my travel policy excludes delays arising from drones. I have no idea how widespread this exclusion would be but if one company excludes this it is likely that others will as well; just to add to the frustration of those unable to get away.

I doubt that it will have a substantial effect on any HYP insurers. Legal and General have only a small general book anyway (and they are planning to sell it I think, RSA and Aviva will both do travel insurance I expect; Admiral not at all as far as I know.

Dod

[Breelander]

There shouldn't be a need to claim on travel insurance, apparently the airline should be fully responsible for compensation/rescheduling in the event a flight is postponed for any reason (drones included).

Now who insures the airlines, I wonder?

[tjh290633]

There shouldn't be a need to claim on travel insurance, apparently the airline should be fully responsible for compensation/rescheduling in the event a flight is postponed for any reason (drones included).

Now who insures the airlines, I wonder?

The big ones will self-insure or have a captive insurance company.

I imagine that the alternative is to use Lloyds through a broker.

TJH

[Bouleversee]

Thanks for your responses, Dod. I wondered whether such claims would be excluded but Grayling seemed to be under the impression that it was only terrorist related incidents that were not covered.

Bree - I'm pretty sure Grayling said that that wasn't the case but passengers' travel insurance would compensate. However, it remains to be seen where the buck finally stops and indeed to what extent the airlines themselves are covered.

[tjh290633]

Thanks for your responses, Dod. I wondered whether such claims would be excluded but Grayling seemed to be under the impression that it was only terrorist related incidents that were not covered.

Define your terrorist.

TJH

[kempiejon]

There shouldn't be a need to claim on travel insurance, apparently the airline should be fully responsible for compensation/rescheduling in the event a flight is postponed for any reason (drones included).

Now who insures the airlines, I wonder?

I heard it on the radio this morning and I think the technical term is an “extraordinary circumstance”, as defined by EU law, and beyond the control of the airlines so they may well not be bound by law to pay. So I think it is the insurers that'll pay; Admiral do offer travel as one of their products.

[Breelander]

Bree - I'm pretty sure Grayling said that that wasn't the case...

Yes, I wrote before I turn on the TV and heard today's news. Apparently he has let them off the hook by declaring this a 'one-off' special case. Normally the airlines are fully responsible for cancellations.

[jackdaww]

both aviva and easyjet shares up slightly - so the market isnt expecting a material impact then .

[Wizard]

I fear this one could really hurt individuals in some circumstances. As said above the airlines seem to be off the hook for the type of compensation if it had been caused by plane breakdowns, etc. But I do not know how far this extends, if you were on a flight to Gatwick but end up in Paris do the airlines really have no obligation to get you to Gatwick even in exceptional circumstances?

If as pointed out it is excluded in travel policies then there is no basis for an insurance claim. As a shareholder of insurers I hope they have the clause excluding drones, but at a human level I feel for those affected by this - their by the grace of God... I also wonder to what extent the insurers if they do cover this would / should fight over the top claims. For instance, there was one person on the news saying they were diverted to Liverpool and then spent £450 on a taxi to Gatwick, surely they would be obliged to make some effort to get to Gatwick in a cost effective way? But then I guess we are back to what the airlines are responsible for even in exceptional circumstances.

Terry.

[Bouleversee]

Thanks for your responses, Dod. I wondered whether such claims would be excluded but Grayling seemed to be under the impression that it was only terrorist related incidents that were not covered.

Define your terrorist.

TJH

Quite so, and it's all too sophisticated IMHO to be just techie kids fooling around. The knock-on long term effects could be disastrous for anyone connected with the travel trade as well as the airlines. With money tight, who needs this extra discouragement from travelling? We may see fewer foreign visitors and more stay at home holidays for the British.

I wonder how long ago the drone exclusion clause was inserted into policies sold by Dod's insurer. Clearly, Grayling wasn't aware of it. I hadn't been aware of any such incidents before this week's events so it would seem the insurance companies are way ahead of the govt. in anticipating them. I gathered from the Today programme discussion that the technology doesn't yet exist to prevent invasion by drones which is certainly worrying.

[Wizard]

Just found this, which is very helpful if everything in it is correct.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46632302

Appears airlines are only off the hook for additional compensation, but are still very much on the hook to get you to your original destination. However, it seems to say passengers can opt for a refund, so if you came from Australia and ended up in Paris not Gatwick maybe you would go for that option as the cost of getting yourself to Gatwick from Paris is likely to be less than the cost of the flight.

Finally, it appears the Govt. are going to put pressure on insurers to act as a back stop and not rely on small print exclusions.

Terry.

[Dod101]

There is nothing 'small print' about the exclusion in my policy. It is there for all to see and read. Sure it must be very frustrating especially if you have children in tow but at least it does not seem to be affecting life or limb. Apparently it is an EU regulation that lets airlines off the hook, and if they are allowed off so too should insurers be.

Dod

[Raptor]

Moderator Message:
As this not specific to HYP am moving from HYP Practical board. Raptor.

[Bouleversee]

Moderator Message:
As this not specific to HYP am moving from HYP Practical board. Raptor.

Moving it to where.? As it may be relevant to some of our Hyp shsres and as some people may hold only Hyp shares, i really can't see why it can't be discussed here. Would you prefer a blank board?

[PinkDalek]

Moving it to where.?

To here, we are now on Share Ideas. If Raptor has the time available, a shadow at High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical might assist.

[Wizard]

There is nothing 'small print' about the exclusion in my policy. It is there for all to see and read. Sure it must be very frustrating especially if you have children in tow but at least it does not seem to be affecting life or limb. Apparently it is an EU regulation that lets airlines off the hook, and if they are allowed off so too should insurers be.

Dod

My bold.

As per my post and the BBC article I linked to we need to be careful using the phrase "off the hook". The EU regulations for exceptional events seem to mean that additional compensation is not due, but they are still obliged to cover a lot of costs, such as: finding you another flight, putting you up in a hotel, paying for meals, getting you back to the right airport if you are diverted, paying you back if you decide to take a refund. With the airport just having closed again these costs are surely going to mount up.

Terry.

[Bouleversee]

Moving it to where.?

To here, we are now on Share Ideas. If Raptor has the time available, a shadow at High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical might assist.

Ah, I hadn't noticed the link had taken me here. So which share are we talking about?

[Howard]

I sympathise with all the travellers whose holidays have been disrupted. It must be really distressing for families and those who end up miles from their destinations after delays.

This isn't a big deal for insurers compared with some of the risks they cover. Big storms damaging lots of buildings or icy conditions causing an increase in motor accidents will be much more significant.

In some ways this is good PR for quality insurers who look after their customers (and don't be too cynical, they do exist ). It encourages travellers to take out insurance and might be cheaper than advertising. And it encourages loyalty.

Over the years I have had two experiences of travel claims both handled well. However I made sure that the claims were reasonable and justified with receipts/paperwork. They encouraged me to be loyal to the companies who paid out.

regards

Howard