Getting on board
Policy wording is something that many travel insurers are continually striving to improve. But are they making progress, and what should they be aiming for? Marie Clair from the Plain English Campaign puts pen to paper
First published in ITIJ 91, August 2008
Policy wording is something that many travel insurers are continually striving to improve. But are they making progress, and what should they be aiming for? Marie Clair from the Plain English Campaign puts pen to paper
Some years ago, ITIJ invited the Plain English Campaign (PEC) to write a piece on policy document wording. That feature was written by John Wild, an experienced member of the PEC; but when ITIJ asked him for an update, his reaction was mixed: “As with other areas of industry and commerce where there is heavy legal or financial involvement, we struggle to make quick or revolutionary changes,” explained Wild, now the campaign’s senior trainer. “However, we are seeing an increase in the number of travel insurance companies who have realised that communicating clearly with customers generates consumer trust, and ultimately leads to more business.”
So, frustrated UK consumers, in particular, can take heart in knowing that improvements are being made, but the question is – why so slow and so painful? We tried to get an idea of the answer by gathering a review panel of PEC editors and a range of travellers for an afternoon of travel insurance policy perusal with promises of a free holiday for their troubles. We reveal our findings below, and explain the concept and importance of clear and concise policy wording.
Clear benefits
Legal bodies continue to argue that the use of plain English in documents diminishes and generalises their legal implications, but there are increasing examples of court hearings or press coverage that show the real problem lies with jargon and lack of clarity. The same goes for travel insurance policies. So, how big a crisis is needed before these excuses are shown for what they are? Encouragingly, our counterparts on other continents are seeing the clear benefits of authoritative decisions and government guidance over the use of plain language – for both insurers and consumers. But in the UK and most of Europe there is a lack of definitive law regulating the industry’s documentation. The EU directive for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) goes some way to dealing with plain language issues in favour of the consumer, while organisations like the Association of British Insurers (ABI) or the Financial Services Authority (FSA) have an interest in the issues of travel insurance. But there is not yet a singular body that has full responsibility for legislation that sets out the essentials for policy wording.
While researching this article, some of the recognised UK bodies mentioned confirmed their support for plain language. They claimed that they practice the use of plain language themselves, but admitted they had no responsibility for checking or enforcing it elsewhere.
The absence of universally-accepted standards in plain language means consumers usually end up attempting to cope with vast amounts of insurance documentation. Even relatively simpler policies, such as single-trip travel insurance, can often look like a ten-page examination paper. Bodies such as the Travel Health Insurance Association of Canada, however, are advising their members to adopt the use of uniform definitions for clarity and consistency. They have clearly recognised a need for such standardisation, and have formed a solution that provides a solid base for others to follow.
The United States, meanwhile, has had its Plain Language in Government Communications Act for some time now. And although it is aimed specifically at government language use, this act has had a positive impact on the wording of other official documentation such as insurance policies. Clearly, US officials are beginning to appreciate that long held concerns about plain language losing the weight or the meaning of a document are unfounded. In a country that is often criticised for its ‘claims culture’, plain language is a tool that reduces the opportunity for either party to hide or get lost in the policy wording maze. Processing is faster, sales are higher and claims could potentially decrease.
We have also seen the evidence of these benefits in the UK, with a number of plain English supporters. One UK insurance company realised the sales of their ‘Home cover’ policy were low and that they were losing their customer base. They asked us for help and by applying plain English principles the company saw a sales increase by 600 per cent in just 16 months. However, the consumer remains reliant on the goodwill of the insurer to provide plain language.
we are seeing an increase in the number of travel insurance companies who have realised that communicating clearly with customers generates consumer trust, and ultimately leads to more business.
The UK’s parliamentary decision to replace archaic Latin terms with plain English in civil courts is a major step forward. And in the UK the ABI, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the FSA have encouraging views about the mutual good that comes from using plain English. But without specific law, consumers are faced with a slow and uphill climb.
Nick Palmer, a British MP is in the throes of pushing through the much needed Small Print Bill in the UK, which would contribute to improving various consumers’ documentation, including travel insurance policies. Furthermore, events like the recent baggage handling crisis at Heathrow’s new Terminal 5, and the press coverage regarding subsequent travel insurance claims also highlighted the need for insurers to use clearer language.
All change
So, what has changed since our original article for ITIJ, if anything? Recent PEC edits of travel insurance policies in the UK reveal that the same problems continue to frustrate consumers. Some of the most frequent are:
- policy documents written in coloured inks that challenge people with visual impairment or dyslexia;
- font sizes well below the recommended limit;
- lengthy documentation of up to 40 pages;
- differing terminology from one provider to the next; and
- many combinations, permutations and exceptions within one policy.
Most noticeable was the change in the sheer size of travel insurance policy documents, which seem to grow year by year. One recently reviewed travel policy has grown from 14 pages in 2005 to 38 pages this year. The danger here for policyholders is that they become intimidated by page after page of text, even if it is well written. This often means they skim through the policy and trust that it is suitable, which can be risky. On the other hand, wording can be so complicated that customers cannot decide what type of cover is most suitable, which can mean they end up with inadequate insurance.
For example, we recently heard from an elderly couple who went on holiday to Portugal. They had taken out travel cover and thought they were well-protected. On the second day of their holiday, the wife tripped and fell awkwardly and was rushed to hospital in Portimao for an operation. The treatment was superb, but then the bombshell came with the hospital’s bill: the operation and hospital stay had to be paid for then and there. The policy was valid, but would only refund the policyholders later. The couple had no credit cards and not much currency so became desperate. Fortunately, the day was saved by a relative who paid the bill for them. But what would have happened if they had not had someone to turn to? By their own admission, the reason they were in this mess was because they had not read their policy properly because it was too long, full of jargon and they could not read the small print.
Insurance brokers can get it wrong too. One man we spoke to went to his insurance broker to buy a travel policy for a holiday in Europe with his wife. The broker advised him which policy would be suitable so he paid the premium and went home. Luckily, that night he read through the policy document and realised that it was only suitable for his wife. He was excluded because of his age. Needless to say, he had a few words with the broker the following day.
in the UK and most of Europe there is a lack of definitive law regulating the industry’s documentation.
One vital aspect of insurance is there must be ‘utmost good faith’ by the policyholder. This means that everything that may be relevant must be disclosed to the insurance company, including pre-existing medical conditions, to prevent rendering the policy invalid. Insurance companies are striving to get this message across to policyholders, but this can have the unfortunate side effect of making the policies longer.
Journeying on
The Plain English Campaign has been trying since 1979 to promote the use of plain language in all sorts of communications, and over that time we have had great success not just with improvements to the language, but also with changes to design and presentation. But what exactly do we mean by plain English? It is not ‘cat sat on the mat’ language, and it doesn’t talk down or patronise. Plain English means using everyday language, active verbs, short sentences and so on. It also includes good design principles, typography, signposting, use of white space and many other techniques.
In our experience, a plain English insurance policy benefits the insurer as much as the policyholder. In one case, our legal experts worked with an insurance company on their motoring policy, and only when the policy was translated into plain English did it become obvious that the policyholder would not be covered if they went driving in Scotland. The company was horrified and embarrassed. The old policy wording was so obscure that they did not even realise that travel in Scotland was not covered.
This experience is by no means unusual. A spokesman for the Insurance Ombudsman stated that in disputes where they were asked to adjudicate, 90 per cent of the cases were due to the company not understanding the contents of its own policy. The main reason for this is a failure to use plain English and to review policies regularly to make sure that policies still mean what the company thinks they mean. In too many cases, policies change over time with extra clauses being ‘bolted on’ to cover particular situations, while at the same time the original meaning of the policy becomes more and more obscure.
Competition between insurance companies continues to be fierce. The companies that survive will be those that provide clear, unambiguous policy wording. Plain English Campaign’s mark of clarity, the Crystal Mark, appears on nearly 17,000 documents worldwide, including many insurance documents. When the public see the Crystal Mark, they know that they will be able to understand their rights and duties. The campaign also promotes an Honesty Crystal Mark, which assures consumers that the company will stand behind every detail contained within a document. A major Irish insurance company has taken this step and reports positive feedback from its clients, and an increased sense of pride and confidence from its employees. It would be heartening to see an increase in Honesty Crystal Marks on travel insurance policies, if only to prove to consumers that insurers do not make their policy documents deliberately difficult.
A spokesman for the Insurance Ombudsman stated that in disputes where they were asked to adjudicate, 90 per cent of the cases were due to the company not understanding the contents of its own policy.
In a society that has become more challenging for government, business and the individual, consumers do have more information, but whether it is in a form that gives more knowledge is still dubious. Perhaps our basic package holidays could come with some basic package travel insurance – in basic plain English – and leave the more adventurous traveller to machete their way through the jungle of insurance exclusions – or is that too easy?
No wonder that John Wild’s reaction to selecting a travel insurance policy for his free holiday was also mixed: “It’s a slow boat to China, a hike up the Himalayas, a journey to the jungles of Borneo,” he said wistfully. A sense of pleasure at the cost of great pain then? In the end, our review panel were just too exhausted comparing policy details to consider what to pack, and decided not to take their holidays after all. Needless to say, the boss was happy.