A nurse from Ormskirk, Lancashire has won a landmark victory against a holiday insurance company when they refused to pay compensation after a coach crash in Turkey.
Sharon Healy had to stop working after she lost her right leg from below the knee when a day trip ended in disaster. She submitted a claim using her Thomas Cook insurance but they rejected her claim. Their reason was that Susan had not made it known in advance that she would be going on any excursions. This was even though they sold the trip to her after her arrival in the resort.
Three years later Sharon has finally won a ruling that will make Thomas Cook support her £100,000 compensation claim against the coach company in Turkish courts. She said, “After the crash my leg was hanging off. The doctors in Turkey did their best to save it but when I got back to the UK I was told it was beyond repair.
“Through all the trauma I clung to the belief that at least I was fully insured with a reputable company like Thomas Cook.
“But Thomas Cook insisted I was not eligible for anything. They said it did not count because the bus trip had not been a transfer from the airport to the hotel. I was shocked and disgusted that they were using a get-out clause. There was no warning when I was booking the trip with them that I needed extra insurance.”
As a result of her disability she is not able to work as an auxiliary nurse and now earns £500 a month less as a ward clerk.
At the time of booking the holiday in 2002 Sharon bought comprehensive insurance cover. But after the accident she was told the Package Holiday Regulations 1992 didn’t cover the excursion as she paid for it in the resort and not in the UK.
The Insurance Services Ombudsman ruled that the wording of the policy was ambiguous.
Emma Parker of the Insurance and Services Ombudsman office said tour operators are responsible to make clauses that are ambiguous clear to holidaymakers before they go on holiday.
She added, “It is also important for insurance policies to at least cover holidaymakers for some things. You cannot have a situation where there are clauses excluding almost everything.”
