Cookie policy
Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Travel insurance

Should travel insurers pay out to drunken holidaymakers?

Ed Bowsher
by Lovemoney Staff Ed Bowsher on 18 June 2012  |  Comments 16 comments

Some insurance companies are clamping down on holidaymakers who claim for accidents suffered when they're drunk or under the influence of drugs. What do you think? Is this is the right approach?

Should travel insurers pay out to drunken holidaymakers?

Most travel insurance policies have always had an exclusion that says that claims may not be valid if medical treatment was required as a result of drunkenness or use of recreational drugs. However, insurers are now getting tougher in this area, according to a survey by the British Insurance Brokers’ Association (BIBA).

The BIBA looked at 20 of the most popular travel insurance policies on the market and found that they all included exclusions for alcohol abuse.

The exclusions range from ‘excessive alcohol intake’ to ‘drinking so much alcohol that your judgement is seriously affected’ and ‘any claims that result from using alcohol’. The overall trend is that exclusions are becoming stricter.

Given these exclusions, it’s prudent not to get seriously drunk while on holiday. Or use recreational drugs.  If you have an accident as a result, insurers may refuse to pay for your medical care.

If you’re determined to drink a lot while you’re on your holiday, it makes sense to read the terms and conditions of your travel insurance policy before you  buy. That way you can look for a policy that is more tolerant of drinking and gives you more leeway.

What do you think?

Personally, I’ve got no problem with the insurers getting tough on this issue. We all know that many young people go to places such as Ibiza with the intention of being drunk for a large portion of their holiday.

As a result, these kids are more likely to have an accident and I don’t see why I should pay higher premiums on my travel insurance policies thanks to their stupidity.

But what's your view? Take part in our poll and we'll see what the lovemoney.com community thinks about this issue.

More:  How to get travel insurance if you have a pre-existing condition  |  Top travel insurance for your holidays

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (16)

  • reededdie
    Love rating 3
    reededdie said

    Don't just blame it on the youth, many older people plan on spending their holidays in a similar state

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • c3menzies
    Love rating 14
    c3menzies said

    So they shouldn't be covered either. If you're intending to be involved in high risk activity (horse riding/skiing/getting drunk/drugged) then surely you should be able to take out higher risk cover at a higher cost reflecting the higher risk.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    While it may well be true that young people are more likely to spend a holiday drinking themselves senseless, I don't blame them entirely. They are brought up (in some cases it's a self-administered upbringing while their parents go out drinking/drugtaking) in a society which accepts drink and drugs as part of life. If they had any kind of moral lead from adult society they might have a sound reason to abstain. Generally people today recognise the harm that can be done to their bodies by substance abuse but don't think it will happen to them.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • PDB11
    Love rating 72
    PDB11 said

    I agree with marram. This is part of a wider problem, with a culture of drinking to get drunk, taking drugs to get stoned. The Solution is not stingier insurance payouts but better education and, and better adult role models when people are kids; but it's a bit late for that, especially since (as reededdie says) there are plenty of older people behaving like this too.

    In principle I see no problem with insurance companies imposing such tough terms, provided less restrictive policies are available for those who pay extra; and the insurance companies are open about how they assess claims, so that customers can make an informed decision. The most economical way to provide cover for the heavy drinkers while allowing affordable insurance for the rest of us is some sort of risk register; but I think most people (myself included) would consider that an unacceptable invasion of privacy.

    I can't help thinking of Thomas Cook, though. He was an anti-alcohol campaigner, and decided to tackle the problem by giving low-paid workers something else to do with their time and money, rather than spend it all at the pub. So he invented the cheap package holiday. How things have changed!

    (On the other hand, I think Cook wouldn't even let you sign up for his early packages unless you agreed to remain alcohol-free. Good idea, but I don't think that'd sell many holidays today...)

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • ronat42
    Love rating 62
    ronat42 said

    My wife is a Myeloma sufferer and, although she is is full remission, we have to pay a huge premium with exclusions. I don't care if they're young or old, there should be clauses in the policy which specifically exclude claims caused by self administered or self inflicted problems. It is a sad fact that tolerance over the years has resulted in many of the social problems we have today and the sooner we get tough on this sort of problem the sooner our country can recover a bit of self respect.

    No excuses!

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • JohnW
    Love rating 26
    JohnW said

    Whilst I fully agree it is part of a wider problem there is no reason that responsible people should have to pay for those who abuse the system. Not only should travel insurance not pay out for drunken behaviour, after all it is a self administered problem, car insurance should not either, nor should NHS treatment be free if alcohol is involved.

    It is about time society got stricter on alcohol related issues.

    If the insurance companies can charge me a lot extra simply because I am older, then they can charge those who should know better.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • DaveDB
    Love rating 14
    DaveDB said

    Household insurance policies do not always pay out if burglary takes place if you have left doors unlocked... and that is carelessness not deliberate action.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Abigail Thornton
    Love rating 11
    Abigail Thornton said

    This sentence needs editing: That way you can look for a more policy that is more tolerant of drinking and gives you more leeway.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Abigail Thornton
    Love rating 11
    Abigail Thornton said

    The danger of this is that things happen to 'drunk' people which aren't necessarily a result of being 'drunk'. One of the most common things to happen to Brits abroad is that they look the wrong way before stepping into the road - you don't need to be drunk to do that. Sober people don't tend to fall from balconies - but they do fall down stairs. "Any claims that result from using alcohol" could be abused as it is rather subjective as to whether alcohol was actually responsible. Very slippery slope, if you'll excuse the pun.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • unsworthsteve
    Love rating 22
    unsworthsteve said

    What's the problem here. The policies say you are not covered if your loss is the result of drunkenness. Now they are enforcing the claim. End of story, except for the arguments that will surround whether the drunkenness caused the loss.

    In many cases drunkenness will have been a contributory factor but not the sole cause; there should therefore be a proportionality clause and it would be helpful if the ABI could help devise recommended policy wording that consumers can place some reliance on as being a fair compromise.

    I liked the implicit assumption from one poster that old people are more responsible with alcohol - not sure how true that is. Probably 30s and 40s married couples with kids hit the height of responsibility, but it's back downhill again thereafter in my experience!

    Red wine lout

    Yorkshire

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    If Thomas Cook's intentions for holidaymakers are now a little redundant, spare a thought for J H Kellogg - his product hasn't been a roaring success on the basis of his original hopes. Perhaps all the w*nkers who disgrace this country by their drunken antics on holiday should eat more cornflakes.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    To answer the original question. IF being 'drunk' played a material difference in the claim existing or not, then it should be accounted for and non-payment of claim if appropriate.

    However, by stating that all claims will be invalid if alcohol is a factor is not right. How much alcohol needs to be consumed before it becomes a factor and how would this be measured? One pint, 2 pints, 3 pints? Size of person, drinking history, blood alcohol level?????

    Either it needs to be so descriptive as to be unmanageable, or it needs to be on a case by case basis knowing ALL the facts.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Talent
    Love rating 77
    Talent said

    The insurance companies will not make insurance cheaper for those that don't get drunk, that's for sure.

    Not all car accidents, where someone was over the legal limit, are caused by the drunk. The drunk will still lose their licence though and quite rightly so.

    France is making drivers carry a breathalyser, perhaps the answer is for everyone to carry one and blow it (if you can) if you're injured in some way ;-))

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    The question should always be what contribution has the alcohol you have consumed made to the accident? If you are sat on a seat on a pavement in a drunken stupor and a vehicle mounts the pavement and hits the seat doing you injury OF COURSE insurance should pay out. But I can well imagine that insurance companies would refuse to pay out on the grounds that had you not been drunk you wouldn't have been sat there. Insurance companies are not in business to pay out on insurance claims, that is why we have to have an Ombudsman, they are in the business of insurance in order to make as large a profit as possible for their shareholders. And don't believe anyone who says anything different.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    Businesses have a legal duty to their shareholders but they have to have a business model which keeps customers happy. I've had more good interactions with insurance companies than bad and in one case of a very obnoxious loss adjuster, a few words in his ear had my cheque in the post the next day. If you have a valid claim, companies will not throw money at the situation just to get out of paying; they hate legal action and bad publicity.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    I would love to believe you, electricblue, but if like me you have had an insurance company trying to fob you off with a pathetically low valuation based on a valuation method that was completely different to that which was clearly stated in the policy document, you will understand that I have a rather more juandiced view than you.

    Report on 20 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Related content

Our top deals

Credit card
company 		Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR 		Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).

Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4