TECHNOLOGY

Fiancees are angry after the wedding insurer uses the "loophole" to avoid payment


Couples are angry after the insurer used the government's “legal loophole” to avoid paying out if their wedding was canceled due to Covid-19

  • The couple thought their wedding insurance would cover their canceled wedding
  • WeddingPlan says that cancellations due to "government law" are not covered.
  • The story of the couple Yasmin Dick and Tyrone Hunt has fired on the company
  • Here's how you can help people affected by Covid-19

A leading provider of wedding insurance has come under fire for closing an obvious gap to avoid paying out to couples who cannot get married due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Customers who were forced to cancel their big days were initially told that they were entitled to make a claim because they were protected against “an outbreak of contagious or contagious diseases”.

But WeddingPlan, a trade name for UK General Insurance, is now saying that it doesn't cover anything canceled due to "government law".

Consumer experts condemned the stance as completely unfair.

London's Yasmin Dick and Tyrone Hunt thought their £ 105 policy would allow them to recoup the cost of their canceled wedding – the two should get married in a Tuscan villa this month.

Ms. Dick, 30, claimed that WeddingPlan employees assured them that they were insured in February and March, and even highlighted the infectious disease clause.

Yasmin Dick (right) and Tyrone Hunt of London thought their £ 105 policy would allow them to recoup the cost of their canceled wedding

WeddingPlan, a trade name for UK General Insurance, says it doesn't cover anything canceled under a "government law".

WeddingPlan, a trade name for UK General Insurance, says it doesn't cover anything canceled under a "government law".

When the lock came into effect in the UK, she said the company had told them about a number of "contradicting things" and the couple were advised to ask suppliers to reorganize their event.

"The insurance company essentially only exposes it to couples and small businesses and assumes no liability itself," said Miss Dick, who is pictured on the left with her fiance.

Adam French, a consumer rights expert at Which? Said, “This is another example of where the cost, stress and hassle has been pushed back to consumers rather than being treated by the insurers themselves. That is not right or fair. "

The British general said that his company was supported by Great Lakes Insurance and that the final decision on claims was up to them.

A spokesman said, "A government ban is not intended and should never be part of the coverage provided." Unsatisfied customers were advised to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Ms. Dick, 30 (right), claimed that WeddingPlan employees assured them that they were insured in February and March, and even highlighted the infectious diseases clause

Ms. Dick, 30 (right), claimed that WeddingPlan employees assured them that they were insured in February and March, and even highlighted the infectious diseases clause

advertising

(tagsToTranslate) Dailymail (t) messages (t) coronavirus