In the "General Exclusions" section of the policy, it states: "This plan does not cover any insured Loss caused by or resulting from . . . any Trip taken outside the advice of a Physician." In other words, if a physician advises against making the trip, and you, the insured, decide to make it anyway, you are not covered, and the insurer will not pay.
In this case, both national and world health agency physicians advised not to make such a trip. Additionally, I am willing to bet you that not one person's personal physician would advise in favor of making this trip during the current outbreak. Would yours have told you to make the trip under the circumstances?
Given this situation, the insurer should have provided coverage in the event that I would have needed to rely on this. It isn't fair that the insurer should profit from premiums while retaining the right to deny coverage due to a policy exclusion (travel against advise of a physician) on the one hand while stating that a "mere" national and world health travel advisory is not sufficient to trigger coverage on the other hand. Does that seem fair to you?
It just doesn't seem right to me that a medical organization,DAN, should ally itself with a position that forces its paying members to have to decide to risk contracting a serious illness in this way. So, I decided to do something about it by bringing this to your attention, and by giving you a vehicle to potentially correct the situation.
No matter how you feel about the situation, DAN has indicated that it would consider revising future policies to provide coverage in such an instance. If enough members voice their opinions, perhaps we can prevent someone from contracting a serious illness (or worse) after making a pressured decision to make such a trip in the future.
