"Under the influence" - Travel Insurance claim

[Lucifer77]

Brief history of my claim...

 

I was in Germany in July (backpacking) and was pickpocketed. Theft was reported to the police. The loss was a camera and around £200 from my wallet. I put the claim in Aug 4th, had a telephone interivew a couple of weeks back and today I receieved a letter saying that they would not pay out as I had "confirmed that I was under the influence of alcohol".

 

This is utter lies, I stated that I had 3 beers over the course of 4 hours and was in no way drunk as had to get an early train. In no way did alcohol influence my actions that evening.

 

Is this worth challenging?

 

What exactly is the legal definition of "under the influence of alcohol"?

[Mossycat]

The legal definition 'under the influence of alcohol' relates to a prescribed limit, anything over that limit and you are 'under the influence of alocohol'

 

For example, a motorist is allowed 35mg of alcohol, if they are tested and are over this prescribed limit then they are charged accordingly.

 

An airline pilot is not allowed any alcohol at all so anything over 0mg and they are over the prescribed limit.

 

To establish whether or not you were under the influence of alcohol you need to refer to the terms and conditions as stated on your policy and read what it says about alcohol. If no limits are defined then ask your insurers how they justify their statement, it is worth remembering that alcohol affects different people to different levels ( a 20 stone regular drinker may well drink more than a 6 stone non drinker and still not be over a prescribed limit), so it's unreasonable to have a clause in a contract that is too vague or too open to interpretation.

 

If they come back without any firm figures or unable to quote where in their terms and conditions they state their limits then yes I would challenge it

 

Mossy

[Lucifer77]

Thanks for this...

 

I am 13 stone and had a couple of substantial meals, given I can happily drink 2 bottles of wine of a Saturday night then believe me 3 beers over 4 hours is nothing.

 

In terms of what I said, well, I told the girl at the telephone interview that I had drunk 3/4 beers, never did I state the size of beers or indeed the alcoholic content of the beers. I actually stated that I was "NOT DRUNK" as had to get up early.

 

They are simply clutching at straws imo, the very mention of alcohol has given them cause to invent that fact that I was drunk. Its simply not true and I will be asking them to further justify there decision.

 

Thanks again

[vusys1]

on holiday!! having a drink,relaxing!! didnt you think that this would invalidate the terms of your "travel insurance";).

 

they def clutching

[vusys1]

what company was this? ive looked under a few other brands,nothing about under the influence,just take reasonable care of your possessions etc

[Lucifer77]

eSure, the particular section reads as follows:

 

General exclusions which apply to all sections:

 

11. you being under the influence of alcohol or drugs (except those prescribed by your registered doctor, but not when prescribed for the treatment of drug addiction);

 

3/4 small beers over the course of an evening is hardly what I would call 'under the influence', I have asked them to review my file. I shall be persuing this all the way, it's pretty scandalous that one cannot enjoy a relaxing drink whilst on holiday without invalidating there cover.

[Mossycat]

eSure, the particular section reads as follows:

 

General exclusions which apply to all sections:

 

11. you being under the influence of alcohol or drugs (except those prescribed by your registered doctor, but not when prescribed for the treatment of drug addiction);

 

 

OK Now it's up to them to prove that 3 or 4 of those small beers was enough to make you 'under the influence of alcohol'.

 

From a claims handling point of view I use that clause ONLY when a policyholder has been arrested and charged with an offence (for example a drunk driver who crashes his car would not be able to claim for the repairs to his own vehicle, BUT that is conditional upon them been convicted of the offence).

 

Anything else is to subjective and wouldn't stand up.

 

Mossy

[Lucifer77]

OK Now it's up to them to prove that 3 or 4 of those small beers was enough to make you 'under the influence of alcohol'.

 

From a claims handling point of view I use that clause ONLY when a policyholder has been arrested and charged with an offence (for example a drunk driver who crashes his car would not be able to claim for the repairs to his own vehicle, BUT that is conditional upon them been convicted of the offence).

 

Anything else is to subjective and wouldn't stand up.

 

Mossy

 

Thanks for the advice.

 

I will stick to my guns with this, the truth is that I was not drunk or even tipsy, I will ask them to prove that I was under the influence of alcohol. This is obviously going to be impossible.

[Mossycat]

I will ask them to prove that I was under the influence of alcohol. This is obviously going to be impossible.

 

EXACTLY!

 

They have to prove you were, you do not have to prove you were not!

 

Let us know how you get on, and posty back if you need more advice

 

Mossy