You can see why people who aren’t lawyers get bamboozled by legalese and the small print in legal documents! I’m a lawyer, and I’m struggling with the construction of this one.

So, my family are scheduled to fly out to Malaga, to spend time with my sister, her husband and my nephew. However my brother-in-law has a serious back injury which may prevent him from travelling. Fortunately (for us) we have travel insurance, so if he’s certified as medically unfit to fly, then we are entitled to a refund as per the terms of our travel insurance which provides:

“YOU ARE COVERED up to €4,5000 if your travel and accommodation arrangements are cancelled before your departure from Ireland…which have not been used and which you have paid for or contracted to pay for, providing the cancellation is necessary and unavoidable (and is not a result of mere disinclination to commence your trip as arranged) due to:

(1) the death or disablement by bodily injury, illness, pregnancy or being subject to quarantine of (a) you (b) any person you are intending to travel or stay with (c) and immediate relative of yours or of any person you are intending to travel with or (d) a close business associate of yours”

This definition includes our situation, as “brother-in-law” is included in the definition of ‘immediate relative’ and we are due to share an apartment with them, so we fit within the definition of ‘stay with’

So that’s great, right?

What about the excess clause….Oh.

“YOU ARE NOT COVERED FOR

(1) the first €125 of each and every incident per each insured person involved in the incident…”

How would you interpret that in the circumstances outlined above? What is the excess. Is it €125? Is the excess referable to my brother-in-law? There are three people insured under our policy, myself, my wife and my son. Could the statement “per each insured person” be read as meaning there’s an excess of €125 for each of us, meaning a total excess of €375? What’s the incident here, and what’s the excess?

Thoughts?

Brian