Retaliated for Disputing (Chase Sapphire)

[Anonymous]

I had a strange retalliation by a travel insurance company where I used Chase Sapphire since I'm travelling often and it suppose to be a go-to card for travellers. I purchased a travel insurance and wanted to cancel days before my trip commences. Although the ToC doesn't say anything about cancellations, the vendor insisted not to cancel. I warned them that I'm going to dispute on credit card and the customer service did not care at all.

I filed my dispute with Chase and left for my trip. Few weeks later, I got an email from insurance company notifying that my insurance coverage has been suspended because I filed a dispute. I stuck with no coverage overseas. On top of that, they are asking for $75 reinstantion fee if dispute get resolved  in their favour. 

I called Chase and tried to talk with the dispute department and they said the dispute has been sent to the vendor and they can't do anything unless vendor responds within given time frame which is 60 days. I'll be back home by then and there is no meaning of having an insurance if it's cancelled in the middle of my trip.

Are these kind of retalliations by vendors common? What should we do about it?

[SBR249]

I'm a little confused maybe I'm not reading your post correctly. You purchased travel insurance which you wanted to cancel but then you are worried about not having travel insurance coverage? If so, why did you try to cancel and then dispute the insurance charge?

[Anonymous]

I know it sounds awkward. 

Yes, I wanted to cancel. They did not. I filed a dispute. Meanwhile, a few weeks passed, I left for my trip knowing that I have an insurance coverage that I paid for. 

Now I'm in a state that I don't have a coverage [for the remaining time on my trip] that I paid for full. Also there is no guarantee that I'll be refunded for unused portion.

[SBR249]

I think you are getting a bit ahead there. There are 2 outcomes:

1. Dispute is ruled in your favor. You get money back but no coverage

2. You lose the dispute and you are charged for the coverage. Now I'm not a lawyer, but unless the T&C in the insurance specifically says that coverage is suspended in case of dispute and is not reinstated without a fee, the fact is that you will have paid for the coverage and it would be fraudulent for the insurance company to not provide coverage while still taking your money, especially if they didn't spell out the dispute procedures upfront. If you end up needing that coverage, you may have to resort to legal means.

At this point, the dispute is ongoing so there's nothing that you can do except wait until the time is up and you get a resolution. 

The way I see it, you've done all you can to get your money back. If coverage is really that important to you, you probably shouldn't have tried to cancel. If it wasn't that important then, it shouldn't matter now. 

Edit: I will add that insurance coverage can be retroactive. Just because it's currently in limbo due to the dispute doesn't mean that you won't be "covered" if the dispute is resolved in the insurance company's favor and you end up having to pay anyway. If you paid for it, you paid for it.

Edit 2: might also be a good idea to check your documents carefully to see whether there's mention of a reinstatement fee in case you have to prove that the insurance company wasn't upfront about that.

[Anonymous]

Thanks,  SBR249!

Especially reminding me that insurance coverage can be retroactive.

 If I lose the dispute and I choose to not pay reinstantiation fee,  I would get no coverage which I paid for.
There is no mention of reinstantiation fee anywhere and there is no dispute procedures laid out.

If it comes to that, I could pay the reinstantiation under protest reserving the right to dispute later and I dispute again with documentation. 

[NRB525]

How much did you pay for the travel insurance?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I know it sounds awkward. 

Yes, I wanted to cancel. They did not. I filed a dispute. Meanwhile, a few weeks passed, I left for my trip knowing that I have an insurance coverage that I paid for. 

Now I'm in a state that I don't have a coverage [for the remaining time on my trip] that I paid for full. Also there is no guarantee that I'll be refunded for unused portion.

---

Do you not see the logical error here? You can't cancel, in effect un-pay something, and then expect to enjoy the benefit of it. "Well, it's not canceled *yet*, it's just in process," is not sufficient. The act of revoking payment also revokes (or so one would hope in a rational world) what was paid for.

[Anonymous]

I find it hard to believe that the terms and conditions did not cover cancellations. Especially in 2019 in a heavily regulated industry like insurance. Even if they have a no cancellations allowed policy, that’s still a cancellation policy and would be spelled out.

Also, a company wanting to get paid is not retaliation. Logically the fact the they can reinstate the policy for a fee means some form of cancellation exist. Otherwise there would be no need for a reinstatement policy.

[Brian_Earl_Spilner]

You paid for insurance and then tried to cancel it.  When they refused to cancel, you disputed it. Disputing something would get you a refund if it works out in your favor so the insurance company suspended coverage to make sure you didn't get any benefits and a possible refund later. Why are you upset about not having insurance? You tried to cancel the insurance, why does it matter that you're not covered? Or are you just concerned now that in the end, they may side with the insurance company and you lose the money while not being covered?

[longtimelurker]

---

@Brian_Earl_Spilner wrote:

You paid for insurance and then tried to cancel it.  When they refused to cancel, you disputed it. Disputing something would get you a refund if it works out in your favor so the insurance company suspended coverage to make sure you didn't get any benefits and a possible refund later. Why are you upset about not having insurance? You tried to cancel the insurance, why does it matter that you're not covered? Or are you just concerned now that in the end, they may side with the insurance company and you lose the money while not being covered?

---

I have no idea if this is the case, but there are scenarios where OPs actions make sense.

I buy a policy from company A.    Later I discover a very similar policy from company B at a much lower price.    I attempt to cancel the coverage from A and plan to use part of the money to buy from company B.    However, A gives me pushback and won't return the money, so I don't want to pay additional money to company B, and go ahead, assuming that now I have coverage from A, and I just paid too much.

More due diligence would be good in this hypothetical case, but with something similar, the OP wasn't being totally foolish!