travel insurance

Send me a private message so that I can reply directly to you if you would like. No advertisements or spam guaranteed.
aloha charlie

I started getting travel insurance to cover cancellation because I had family members who were getting on in years and I could see where someday, an event could happen at the last minute causing cancellation or I could be over there and need to get home suddenly. I also got the health insurance that would cover getting me back to the US if I were to ill to travel the normal way. It gave me and my family peace of mind. I haven't had to use it, thank goodness. Pam

We always get trip cancellation insurance because we have a family member who can develop a medical situation at any time. We DID need to use it once. Had to cancel 2 domestic trips that were booked--hotels, flights, etc. We had absolutely no problem getting reimbursed. I recommend it.

I buy it, mostly for the medical it covers. My medical insurance at home doesn't cover me outside the U.S. I did develop a medical problem while in Germany last October and HAD to see a doctor. The insurance reimbursed me for all my expenses. If I hadn't purchased the insurance it would not have been the end of the world, as the cost of treatment was only about $160. But...what if it had been something more serious? What if I had some sort of accident? What if... I paid less for the insurance for myself AND my husband than the amount I was reimbursed, so it paid for itself. I would rather be safe than sorry!

We bought travel insurance for the very first time for a trip last August - our focus was primarily the medical coverage. Turns out, for the very first time, my husband got sick and had to be hospitalized in France. In the end, the policy paid, though there were a few hoops to jump through getting there. We will get it again for our trip this year.

I've bought it before but have only had to make one claim, which is pending. I was scheduled to fly to Japan on the day after the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami. If the insurance company pays the claim, I'm definitely buying travel insurance again.

I wish you good luck with your claim, Paul, but that might be considered an act of God, and therefore not covered. The volcano ash problem last year was the same kind of thing, and some insurances covered it and some did not.

The only time I'd ever purchased travel insurance was for a trip to Mexico booked shortly after 9/11. However, I just purchased travel insurance for our trip to Europe in Sept for the below reasons. 1) Booked much further in advance than a vacation closer to home. Plane tickets booked in October. 2) amount paid up front much more than an average vacations 3) cancellation policies for most of our lodging 7-10 days prior to check in date. If we cancelled a trip the day before departure, we'd be on the hook for a few first nights at 3 hotels. 4) Policy reimburses if you loose your job due to layoffs (if employed 5 years). A concern with the current economy. 5) medical coverage and evacuation (Had an Aunt who fell on a bus in italy, and broke her leg. (very grateful for insurance). 6) Trip interruption. (Had a friend vacationing in hawaii with family of 4. Flight was cancelled and next available flight was 36 hours later. Insurance paid for everything that the airline did not.)
So $127 is well worth the piece of mind.

Nancy, thanks for the thought. Although the earthquake was an "act of god," the policy did provide coverage for such things. This is a good reason why it is important to read the policy before buying if you can. I posted this in another thread, but here is how I believe the policy applies: The policy covers a trip that a traveler cancels before departure due to unforeseen events, including the Insured's destination being made uninhabitable by natural disaster, which includes earthquake. Destination is defined as "any place where the Insured expects to travel to" on the trip. Uninhabitable includes when there are "immediate safety hazards (that) have yet to be cleared" and when "the rental property is without electricity or water." If there is a dispute, I suppose it will be over whether there were immediate safety hazards that had not been cleared. (Even ignoring the nuclear issue, there were very big aftershocks after the 9.0 quake.) With rolling electricity blackouts applying to Tokyo and north, I think that provision is the saving clause to my claim. We'll see.