You recently quoted the Insurance Council as saying that refusing to offer insurance purely on the basis of age would be discriminatory and contrary to the Bill of Rights. (NZWW Feb 11). We were holidaying in Samoa when my wife’s 98-year-old father
became suddenly ill. We flew back to New Zealand the next day at an extra cost of $1000. We claimed on the emergency flight clause of our travel insurance. The insurer pointed out that our policy clearly stated we could not claim on emergency flights for relatives over the age of 80. We should have noticed this, but isn’t that discriminatory on the basis of age?
There is a subtle difference here. The insurance company didn’t refuse to insure your 98-year-old father-in-law. After all, he wasn’t
the insured, you were. They didn’t pay you out because, to offer you insurance at the price it did, it considered it necessary to limit the risk of your having to return home in an emergency.
To do that, the policy would need to stipulate that emergency flights home for illness wouldn’t be covered if the ill person was over 80. In other words, they were going to pay only for a health emergency that came out of the blue. And they consider illness in anyone over 80, and certainly 98, would not be “out of the blue”. You raise a very interesting point and may want to get further advice
from the Human Rights Commission. I doubt that all travel insurers would include the same restriction.
Do you have a consumer question for Kevin? Email [email protected], or post to Weekly Consumer, PO Box 90119, Victoria St West, Auckland 1142
Parking not so fine
I was downtown for a day’s shopping and noticed a sign outside a car-park building saying $13 a day if you check in by 10am and are out by 8pm. So I drove in, bought a ticket at the machine, put it on the window of my car and headed to the stores. My shopping ended mid afternoon and when I presented my ticket to the man on the way out, he said my parking came to $45. I said, “What about the $13-a-day deal?” He said I needed to have bought a special ticket for that: ”It was all explained on the conditions on the wall.” I paid but it seemed nuts to me – $13 for a whole day, $45 for a lot less. Your thoughts?
I can only imagine that instead of pushing the button for the cheap whole-day deal (Wilson’s, for example, call it the Earlybird), you bought a ticket that charged you an hourly rate. These are designed for people needing a car park for a very short time. The rate for these “in and out” parks can be quite steep – up around $8 an hour. But if you stay in one of these parks for five or six hours, as you did, you get lumbered with an enormous bill. I am no fan of those who own car-park buildings, as you may know. But I think the mistake may have been yours in this case. Of course, the attendant had the opportunity to allow you the $13-a-day rate as a goodwill gesture. But if you’re looking for goodwill, you won’t find it at a car-park building. It’s an expensive lesson. Next time, if you want to park all day, be very careful to buy an all-day ticket.
