Consumer Council: Frequently receives complaints related to travel insurance claims, urges the industry to enhance the transparency of terms

The Consumer Council stated that it has repeatedly received complaints regarding disputes over travel insurance claims, such as being stranded on the road during a self-driving trip due to heavy snowfall, which is not covered, flight cancellations affecting claim eligibility due to ticket purchase dates, and luggage delays on return flights without compensation. If the industry can enhance the transparency of terms and clearly outline the coverage and exclusions, it will help consumers better understand important information, protect consumer rights, reduce disputes, build consumer confidence, and improve the industry's image.

\* Case One: Luggage Delay Claim Dispute - No Compensation for Return Flight *

Ms. Li traveled to Canada in September and purchased travel insurance from Company A before her departure. During the trip, there were no incidents, but upon returning to Hong Kong, her flight from Vancouver arrived on time at around 3:30 PM on September 25, yet Ms. Li's checked luggage did not arrive with her. After inquiring with the airline, she found out that her luggage had been left at Vancouver Airport. Ultimately, the airline arranged for the luggage to be delivered to Hong Kong the next day and sent directly to Ms. Li's residence. Ms. Li received her luggage at around 10:30 PM on September 26, resulting in a delay of about 31 hours.

Ms. Li reviewed her policy and found that the coverage for luggage delay allows for compensation every 6 hours of delay, up to a maximum of 300 HKD. She then applied to the insurance company for compensation of 1,500 HKD. However, Company A refused to compensate, stating that the luggage delay on the return flight was not covered. Ms. Li did not accept this explanation, believing that travel insurance should cover the entire journey, including the return flight, and thus filed a complaint with the Consumer Council, requesting compensation from Company A.

Company A explained to the Consumer Council that the coverage for "luggage delay" in the policy only applies to expenses incurred by the insured for reasonable and necessary clothing, essentials, or toiletries due to not being able to collect luggage immediately upon arrival at the destination. The "exclusions" also specify that any losses incurred after the insured arrives in Hong Kong are not covered under the "luggage delay" coverage. Company A stated that Ms. Li should have essential items after returning to her residence in Hong Kong, and after reviewing the case, they still refused compensation, and no consensus was reached in the case.

\* Case Two: Flight Cancellation Due to Industrial Action - Dispute Over When the Ticket Was Purchased *

Ms. Zheng planned to depart for Europe in June for a trip lasting over two months and purchased a global coverage travel insurance policy from Company B, covering the period from June 7 to August 1, with a premium of about 850 HKD.

On June 7, Ms. Zheng departed from Hong Kong to London as scheduled and traveled to several European cities. During this time, she was originally scheduled to return to the UK from Italy on July 10, but the flight was canceled due to industrial action, with no confirmed resumption time. To continue her journey, Ms. Zheng had to purchase a last-minute ticket from another airline departing on July 12. Compared to the original ticket's arrival time, the final delay reached 32 hours.

Ms. Zheng reviewed the policy terms and found that the policy states compensation of 250 HKD for every 6 hours of flight delay, with no compensation for delays of less than 6 hours. After completing her trip, Ms. Zheng submitted a claim to Company B for compensation of 1,250 HKD according to the terms However, the insurance company replied a month later, stating that although the flight was delayed due to industrial action, it only applies to flights booked before the start of the journey (i.e., before June 7). Since Ms. Zheng purchased the ticket for July 10 on June 26 after the journey had begun, it was not covered.

Ms. Zheng was dissatisfied with this response, believing that for longer journeys, consumers find it difficult to book all transportation arrangements before the journey begins. Therefore, she filed complaints with both the Insurance Complaints Bureau and the Consumer Council, hoping to receive compensation for the flight delay.

Insurance Company B responded to the Consumer Council, citing the same clause, stating that since Ms. Zheng purchased the ticket for July 10 after departing for the journey, it did not meet the compensation criteria. However, during the mediation process, Insurance Company B was willing to make special arrangements and ultimately agreed to compensate Ms. Zheng HKD 1,250, resolving the case satisfactorily.

\* Case Three: Trapped by Heavy Snow While Driving Not Covered *

Mr. Xu went on a seven-day self-driving trip to Japan in March and purchased travel insurance from Insurance Company C covering the Asia region, with a premium of about HKD 350. He set off by car at noon to a hotel located in the mountains but was trapped on the mountain road for over eight hours due to a sudden heavy snowstorm. Eventually, Mr. Xu had to rely on emergency roadside assistance to get out and arrived at the hotel around 5 a.m. the next morning, escorted by rescue personnel. Later that day, the rescue personnel also towed Mr. Xu's rented vehicle back to the hotel.

After the trip, Mr. Xu felt that the incident shortened his stay at the hotel and affected his accommodation experience, so he applied for compensation from Insurance Company C, requesting reimbursement for the emergency roadside assistance fees and one night's hotel stay, totaling about 100,000 yen. However, the insurance company notified him via email about two weeks later that the claim was not covered. Mr. Xu immediately replied to the email, objecting and arguing that his case should be covered under the policy's "trip interruption" and "trip delay" protections, requesting the insurance company to review the application again. After waiting about three weeks, Mr. Xu received a response from the insurance company reiterating that the incident was not covered. Mr. Xu did not accept the decision and requested the company to provide a detailed explanation for the refusal of compensation, but he did not receive any further response.

Seeing that Insurance Company C was no longer following up, Mr. Xu sought help from the Consumer Council, hoping for a reasonable explanation and compensation.

Insurance Company C cited the policy content, stating that "trip interruption" only covers losses caused by trip curtailment or re-routing, but Mr. Xu's case did not fall under these situations. As for "trip delay," it only covers losses due to delays of public transportation caused by force majeure, but the insured must be using public transportation with a set itinerary and hold a valid boarding pass or ticket indicating the scheduled departure or arrival time and route. However, the vehicle rented by Mr. Xu was not considered public transportation, and he did not have a relevant boarding pass or ticket, thus it was not covered under "trip delay." Insurance Company C also stated that they had reviewed other coverage areas of the policy, including personal accident, medical coverage, and 24-hour global assistance services, but Mr. Xu's case was not included, and therefore no compensation could be made In light of the case not being resolved through mediation, the Consumer Council has suggested that Mr. Xu consider consulting the Insurance Complaints Bureau if he is dissatisfied with the insurance claim outcome