flyershmlyer

Yes, and so is their interpretation of the definition of their terms. My point was, and not sure if it came through, is to pick the less ridiculous route, especially since the OP was aware of how the insurance company is behaving now.

either check first or spend time and energy afterwards appealing their decision.

mpeterson78

Here's my recent situation:

Was booked from HNL-IAD with a 1 hr layover in LAX. Outbound HNL flight was delayed about 2 hrs, and knowing this would make me miss my connection in LAX, I asked for rebooking options. I could either be sent to IAD via a series of extended stopovers and I would arrive at my destination 24 hrs after original arrival time. Or, I could take an LAX-JFK flight which would get us into New York only 4 hours after originally scheduled to arrive in DC. I then booked train tickets to get me home the rest of the way, and we got home to DC 8 hours after we were originally scheduled.

Knowing the terms of the benefits, I assumed the cost of the train tickets would be covered by the trip delay insurance, since I arrived to my final destination 8 hours after originally scheduled. Filed the claim, and was denied because my initial flight leaving HNL was only delayed 2 hours, and not 3. They said missed connections are not covered and when I asked where it said that in the terms, their response was "there are some terms that apply to this case that are not written in the benefits guide." Well how was I supposed to know that then? How can terms be enforced that are not presented to the customer? Despite me defining "Trip" for them exactly how it was written in the benefits guide (Trip Initiation at origin to Trip Completion at final destination) they refused to cover the claim, constantly falling back on the "your first flight was only delayed 2 hours, therefore there is no Trip Delay".

At one point, after arguing with them for over an hour, they suggested I should try just filing this case under Trip Interruption rather than Trip Delay, but I'm dubious that this will work since the terms of that coverage are not as favorable to my case (must miss half or more of trip). Instead, I just called up Alaska Airlines and they gave me a $500 credit without hesitation for my troubles.

joe_miami

Problem is, there's often no way and/or no time to check in advance. If you're in an airport trying to get rebooked, you're not going to waste an hour trying to get Virginia Surety on the line, and even if one succeeds at that, Virginia Surety probably won't confirm anything in writing.

Why was the first flight delayed? The fact Alaska quickly gave you $500 suggests this might have been an Alaska claim from the start.

Etp

OK. Now I better understood the case, and I agree with you that he is eligible for Trip Delay coverage for expenses he incurred (up to when he arrived at ZZZ, because that's when the delay is over).

"Because of the delay" and ""During the delay" are not defining the same thing. They were used at two different places because they serve different purposes. Eligible expenses are covered as long as they are incurred "during the delay" and, also, they should have been incurred "because of the delay". For example you may buy a wedding ring while you are delayed. That expense was incurred "during the delay", but is not "because of the delay", so it is not covered by Trip Delay insurance. In another example, you may lose all or part of what you paid for a prepaid hotel booking at your destination "because of the delay", but that expense was not incurred "during the delay", so it is not covered by Trip Delay insurance.

ElCaminoReal

Gotta love insurance companies. If one of their employees does the above, they get a plaque in the break room for cutting costs. If a customer does this, they do a fist bump that they don't have to pay out a claim. Hope their bean counters have plenty of soft surfaces for these mental gymnastics.

mpeterson78

First flight was delayed due to mechanical issues. I wanted to go down the route using Citi insurance because I know they would give me cash wheras I knew Alaska would give me a voucher usable only on future Alaska flights, which is more restrictive.

flyershmlyer

Let's not make situations anymore extreme than they actually are. Nowhere in OP's post it says they were already in the airport while getting rebooked. Additionally, OP found the alternative flight on their own and went back to the airline. So, they probably had time to call the insurance also.

joe_miami

Well, the Citi insurance isn't meant to be primary in situations where the airline is liable.

Please. We're talking about a minimum 24-hour arrival delay here due to weather. Why would anyone feel compelled to call the insurance company in advance in a situation like this?

flyershmlyer

I already specified why:

joe_miami

No, that's the point: It's absurd that someone who will arrive at their destination a minimum of 24 hours late would feel compelled to verify that it will, indeed, count as a delay.

flyershmlyer

How is it ever absurd to double check coverage? Especially since OP is aware of how insurance is now being interpreted.

anyways, I'm repeating myself. Feel free to have the last word.

joe_miami

It's not about having the last word. What percentage of people with a Citi credit card are aware of the new "interpretation" that getting to one's destination 24 hours later than expected might not actually be considered a delay?

Etp

It is not wise to double check a coverage when 1) there is an ambiguity in terms that can go both ways (in your favor or or against it), or 2) it is possible that insurer provides an interpretation that makes you ineligible for the coverage. The reason for not double checking is that, when terms are ambiguous or when the insurer's interpretation is different from the insured person's interpretation (and both of them can be reasonably argued), the insured person's interests prevail. It means that ambiguities should be resolved in a way that is in insured person's favor, and if multiple interpretation of terms can be argued, the one that gives maximum benefits to the insured person is applicable.

If you call to double check, you may end up getting a clarification of the terms which resolves the ambiguities and established an interpretation. So you will lose potential benefits you could have argued to be eligible for because of ambiguities in terms or possibility of different interpretations.

flyershmlyer

given your hypothetical example has probably less than .01% chance of being relevant, I stand by my statement. But still enjoyed the general contract law discourse.

mia

Agreed, but there is a more fundamental point. Having a delayed flight is not like holding a winning lottery ticket. I should decide how to proceed, and how much to spend, based strictly on need. The possibility of reimbursement should not influence my decision making.