On the BBC News this morning they were interviewing people who were getting off a ferry in Dover at the end of incredibly long journeys back to the UK. One of them was asked if his travel insurance would reimburse him for the extra costs he had incurred and he said that the costs weren’t covered as the volcano was seen as an “act of god”.
- Is it still reasonable for insurance companies to use medieval language like “act of god”? I mean, insurance policies are very carefully composed. Does language like that really have a place in a legal document in the twenty-first century?
- Given that some (many? most?) insurance companies apparently think it’s ok to use this nonsensical language in policies, is there a business opportunity for an insurance company that specialises in rational policies? I’d be more inclined to buy a policy that didn’t expect me to accept the existence of mythical creatures from the bronze age.
- The “act of god” clause is used to get out of paying for things that the insurance company don’t want to pay for. It’s effectively shorthand for “something that we couldn’t have predicted” (but isn’t that pretty much the whole point of insurance anyway?) But, of course, nothing is an act of god. Things like the volcanic ash cloud are simply natural processes. So if an insurance company tried to get out of paying for something by saying that it’s an act of god, would it be possible to take them to court and expose this claim as the nonsense that it is? Has anyone tried that?
Nothing is an act of god. So surely nothing should be excluded from insurance cover because of that clause. So I don’t understand why it’s still included in policies.