insurance

After two of his children fell ill on an all-inclusive Jet2 trip to Turkey, Blake Chapman decided to abandon the holiday and fly home – but says he was left £10,000 out of pocket

A furious dad says he was left £2,000 out of pocket after a holiday nightmare – despite having paid for travel insurance. Blake Chapman flew out with his 29-year-old partner Abbey Andrews and their three children Keeton, 11, Tobias, 3, and Vienna 1, on August 6. They had paid for 10-day £8,000 all-inclusive Jet2 holiday in the Turkish resort of Alanya.

But the family’s holiday started to go wrong just two days after they landed in Turkey, when Blake and Abbey’s youngest child, Vienna, fell ill with symptoms of severe food poisoning. “It started happening with my one-year-old two days in,” Blake said. “She was completely fine then it got to about 11:15pm and she started projectile vomiting, really bad diarrhoea, temperature.

“Because we were in a different country we panicked. I ran down to reception, they told me that they’d call an ambulance. They got to the hospital, they put an IV drip in Vienna.”

Soon after arriving at the hospital, Blake was presented with a £2,000 bill. “I argued it because I said that we’ve got insurance and I paid for the higher insurance,” he said. “In the end I just paid it.”

But things went from bad to worse when the couple’s three-year-old son Tobias began to show the same symptoms.

Blake said: “The following day around 1.00pm we all got out of the pool just about to get some dinner and it happened to my three-year-old Tobias. We kind of knew what to expect this time. Tobias was being sick in the hospital.”

Faced with the prospect of a second massive bill, Blake refused hospital treatment for Tobias and consulted a pharmacist instead.

Meanwhile, although Blake had been given an explanation for Vienna’s symptoms, he didn’t entirely believe it. He continued: ”We got the doctor’s report and they put it down to dehydration but I’m like a helicopter dad, I took the kids all over the world, we’ve never had a problem.

“When Vienna went to hospital she had a blood test and they said she’s got high white blood cells so that indicated an infection. I don’t believe it is dehydration because I’m not going to sit with a one-year-old in the beaming sun.”

With two of his children seriously unwell, Blake made the decision to abandon the holiday: “My plan was ‘let’s get out of here, let’s fly home’,” he says.

Blake says he tried to get hold of the Jet2 rep without success, so he called the company direct. Despite being told that his insurance claims could potentially take months to process, Blake and Abbey decided to leave the hotel before anyone else fell ill, spending another £950 on flights, arriving back in the UK on August 11.

“It’s put me off all-inclusives,” Blake says. “I would never go to Turkey again in my life from this experience.

He stressed that he wasn’t holding anyone responsible, but was frustrated by the slow process of his insurance claim. ”I’m not blaming the hotel, I’m not blaming the hospital for us being ill but it was how we were left in the dark,” he said.

“It’s very frustrating, very emotional. What I want to do is spread awareness because people think if you go all inclusive with the full travel insurance too then you’ll be OK if anything happens – but we were asked to pay thousands.”

A spokesperson for Jet2holidays said: “We were very sorry to hear that members of the Chapman family became unwell during their holiday. Our in-resort team made attempts to contact the family to offer support, but they had already departed before we were able to speak to them.

“Our teams on the ground work tirelessly to support customers throughout their holidays, and we remain committed to providing help whenever it is needed.”

Some issues can make it harder to find affordable travel insurance

Expert advice has been issued for many Brits planning to go abroad. People with disabilities and long-term medical conditions are being warned to shop around for travel insurance as their health history can send premiums soaring.

Having a medical condition does not mean you cannot get travel insurance – but it can make finding affordable cover considerably harder. Research by Which? highlighted in a new post on X on Wednesday, September 2 found that seven in 10 of its members who had bought travel insurance in the previous two years had declared a medical condition. While most said this had only a minor effect on their ability to find an insurer willing to cover them, many reported that their condition pushed up the price.

One in four said their medical conditions had a major impact on what they paid. The problem can become particularly acute for older travellers.

Data from Compare the Market cited by Which? suggests customers aged over 65 pay roughly double once their medical conditions are taken into account. And simply buying a standard travel policy without declaring a condition could leave holidaymakers dangerously exposed.

Insurers usually require travellers to disclose their medical history, with specialist medical screening companies assessing the risks involved. The resulting risk assessment can affect whether an insurer will provide cover and how much it charges.

But different insurers can make different decisions – meaning it pays to shop around rather than accepting the first quote.

Specialist policies to consider

Which? assessed policies from specialist providers and identified several as Best Buys. Saga came out on top, with its Plus annual multi-trip policy scoring 82%.

It provides up to £20 million of medical expenses cover, £20,000 cancellation cover and £10,000 for baggage and valuables. Saga’s Plus single-trip policy scored 81%, while its Standard annual multi-trip policy scored 77%.

Staysure Signature scored 74%, with unlimited medical expenses cover, £15,000 cancellation cover and £5,000 for baggage. AllClear Platinum scored 70%, also offering unlimited medical expenses cover.

Which? also highlighted InsuranceWith’s Platinum policy, which scored 68% and includes £5,000 of gadget cover.

Don’t hide your medical condition

Travellers should be completely open about their health when buying cover. A medical condition may result in a higher premium or an exclusion being added to a policy. An exclusion could mean claims linked to that condition are not covered – potentially leaving someone facing a huge bill if they become ill abroad.

Which? insurance expert Dean Sobers said there is a reason it publishes information about the medical screening companies used by insurers. The organisation found that 80% of the policies it assessed used Verisk for medical screening, while 12% used Protectif.

This can matter because insurers may reach different decisions about whether to cover someone – and what to charge – even when the same screening process is involved. He said: “When searching for quotes, you may have found yourself answering what feels like identical health-related questions over and over even when trying different insurers. You’re not imagining it: medical screening is outsourced by most travel insurers, with the vast majority using just two firms – Verisk and Protectif.

“While the insurer makes the ultimate decision about how much to charge you, the different approaches of the screening companies can lead to a different picture of your risk. Verisk, for example, asks you to state the name of your medical condition, while Protectif begins by asking you which medications you’re taking and works backwards from that.

“No particular screening company is necessarily going to deliver a cheaper quote, but if you feel like you’ve hit a brick wall with one, trying another could be worth it.”

Specialist insurers are specifically designed to deal with travellers who may be rejected, heavily loaded or offered limited cover by mainstream providers. And with the cost of holidays already high, shopping around could make the difference between being properly protected and taking a potentially disastrous gamble by travelling without adequate insurance.

Los Angeles County announced Monday that it had filed a lawsuit against State Farm General after hundreds of victims of last year’s devastating wildfires complained that their claims had been delayed, denied or underpaid.

The lawsuit alleges that State Farm engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices that kept victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires from receiving what they were entitled to under their policies.

County officials said their investigation into the complaints found unreasonable delays in processing claims, as well as “systematic underpayments.”

Officials said they also found that State Farm had illegally suppressed smoke damage claims.

“Survivors are just asking for what’s right,” L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said at a Monday news conference.

Bob Devereux, a State Farm spokesman, said in a statement that the company would respond to the lawsuit through the legal process.

“State Farm General strongly disagrees with Los Angeles County’s characterization of our wildfire claims response,” he said.

Devereux said that State Farm has so far paid more than $6.2 billion on claims related to the two wildfires, including about $1 billion for smoke-related damage. About 78% of the claims have been closed, he said.

“We continue working directly with customers whose claims remain open and evaluating each claim based on the facts of the loss and the coverage provided by the customer’s policy,” he said.

“Our focus remains on helping customers recover,” he said.

Wildfire victims praised county officials for the lawsuit, which was filed in L.A. County Superior Court.

Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, said at the news conference that, in the months after the fires, it became apparent in talking to victims that those with State Farm policies were not getting the benefits they had paid for.

She said for those families, insurance had become “a barrier to recovery” rather than a safety net.

“Nineteen months after the fires, families are still suffering,” she said.

The county’s investigation included looking at complaints that Chen’s group and others had collected, as well as hundreds of other documents from State Farm policyholders.

County officials said that State Farm “failed to substantially comply” with their requests for documents and information during their investigation.

With more than 2.8 million residential and commercial policies, State Farm is California’s largest private insurer.

The county’s lawsuit includes dozens of complaints of L.A. County fire victims.

“After six decades of paying thousands a year for insurance, we expect them to honor their agreement,” said one family.

Many families say the insurer refused to test their homes for toxins left by smoke.

The lawsuit claims that State Farm “drastically lowballed” estimates of financial losses for destroyed or partially damaged homes.

“They offered us $11,000 to remediate our five-bedroom house,” complained one family. ”That’s only 13% of the actual cost.”

According to the California Department of Insurance, 11,300 State Farm policyholders filed homeowner claims arising from last year’s L.A. County fires.

The lawsuit asks the court to require State Farm to pay full restitution to policyholders, as well as civil penalties for violating state law.

Insurance company executives warned Gov. Gavin Newsom in a letter Wednesday that his plan to shift utility wildfire liability to property insurers would raise premiums across California.

“The party whose equipment ignites a catastrophic fire should bear the economic consequence of that fire,” the 15 executives wrote. “Shifting those costs to policyholders does not reduce the cost of electricity but does make homeownership more expensive and insurance coverage harder to find.”

As the legislative session nears its end, Newsom’s staff and lawmakers have been negotiating behind closed doors on a deal to limit utilities’ wildfire liabilities.

According to a confidential document that Newsom’s staff sent to lawmakers and was obtained by Politico, the governor wants to stop property insurers from recouping their losses from homes destroyed in utility-sparked wildfires.

That could increase homeowners’ property insurance rates by as much as 50%, according to the Personal Insurance Federation of California. The highest hikes would be for those families living in severe fire risk areas.

“The proposal would shift billions of dollars in wildfire costs away from utilities and onto insurance consumers across the state, making coverage more expensive and harder to find,” said Denni Ritter at the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn.

Southern California Edison and the state’s two other big for-profit utilities have been lobbying Newsom and lawmakers to further shield them and their shareholders from wildfire liabilities ever since last year’s Eaton fire caused the price of their stock to tumble.

Government fire investigators said the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes, was caused by electrical arcing on Edison’s out-of-service transmission line in Eaton Canyon. Edison kept the line in place despite not using it since 1971.

More than 11,000 households have filed suit against the utility, claiming it acted negligently, which the company denies.

Edison is offering settlements to victims of the Eaton fire. A $21-billion state wildfire fund that Newsom and lawmakers created in 2019 to protect the state’s three big utilities from bankruptcy after a fire is reimbursing Edison for its payments to victims.

At a press conference Wednesday, Newsom defended his plan, which also includes limiting the fees of attorneys in wildfire litigation and stopping hedge funds from profiting on the claims.

Newsom said that current law allows insurers to be paid before victims after a fire.

“The insurance industry is going to do everything to make sure they get paid first,” Newsom said.

No legislation has yet been filed to end what are called insurers’ subrogation claims. The legislative session ends Monday at midnight. The short time frame would allow for little public debate of a bill filed this week.

According to the document written by Newsom’s staff, the governor also proposed reducing amounts that local governments receive from utility-caused fires. The California State Assn. of Counties said that would shift costs to local taxpayers.

“Shifting wildfire costs to local governments is unjustified when utilities continue to generate significant profits and return billions to shareholders,” the association said in a brief recently sent to lawmakers.

Newsom also wants to reduce payments that fire victims can receive for non-economic damages including pain and suffering, angering victims of the Eaton fire.

More than 50 Eaton wildfire victims showed up to protest in front of the governor’s mansion on Monday night in Sacramento, where Newsom was holding an event for legislators.

They chanted, “Who should pay? Shareholders should pay!”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is pitching a plan to help shield local police officers who make immigration arrests from possible financial consequences if they are accused of on-duty misconduct.

The agency is proposing to subsidize liability insurance for state and local officers who are trained and deputized to enforce federal immigration laws, according to a planning document published Friday.

ICE’s partnerships with local departments have soared since President Trump returned to the White House last year and may get an additional boost with liability insurance by removing a hurdle that has made some local police departments reluctant to join. The Associated Press is the first to report on this insurance proposal.

Under the plan, officers would purchase insurance covering up to $500,000 in personal liability, which typically funds legal fees, settlements and judgments. Officers would be reimbursed up to $250 annually — roughly what the insurance is expected to cost.

One prominent critic of ICE’s immigration crackdown said the program would be yet another way for officers to avoid personal accountability for misconduct.

“The concern here is that ICE is going above and beyond to guarantee law enforcement does not have even the slightest risk of liability for violating Americans’ rights while helping ICE arrest people,” said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, who has called on Congress to make it easier to sue ICE agents for wrongdoing.

ICE outlined the plan in a document informing industry officials that it is considering hiring a contractor to help provide outreach, training and communications support for its so-called 287(g) partnerships with local departments, which are named for a section of a 1996 immigration law. The contractor would hire the insurance vendor and process the reimbursements, among other tasks.

ICE has asked for industry feedback by Thursday. The proposed timeline for launching the program and its estimated cost are unclear.

ICE had no immediate comment on the plan.

Arrests by ICE’s local partners have spiked since last year

During Trump’s second term, ICE has offered generous financial incentives to participating local agencies, increasing the number who have partnered with the federal government, as well as the number of arrests.

Nearly 1,600 agencies in 32 states now have agreements to participate in ICE’s task force model, in which trained local officers can interrogate, arrest and charge people suspected of being in the country illegally, according to ICE data.

Departments qualify for funding to help cover expenses like their officers’ pay, equipment and vehicles. With encouragement from state and local Republican officials, agencies in Florida, Texas, Oklahoma and Georgia have been among the leaders.

Arrests made through such programs jumped to an average of 3,000 per month in the first two months of 2026, according to the most recent ICE data provided to the University of California Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project. That compares to a monthly average of 250 in 2024 under President Biden.

Local departments, officers worried about liability for ICE work

As local officers increasingly carry out federal immigration work, they and their departments have expressed concerns about the civil liability that could result from claims alleging excessive use of force, wrongful arrest and illegal search and seizure, among other things.

That’s because insurance policies that cover their local work may not apply. Pennsylvania’s risk pool, for instance, recently made clear that it would exclude “proactive immigration enforcement activities” from coverage, forcing several participating counties to search for other insurance options.

Butler County Sheriff Michael Slupe said he found insurance to cover his 13 deputies participating in the program at a cost of $20,000 in annual premiums.

“I want to make sure the guys are additionally covered, so we had to spend the money,” he said, adding that federal funding would cover the cost.

Federal officers usually enjoy legal immunities and a government-funded defense when they face lawsuits. But those protections may not always apply to local officers, which has heightened their concerns over liability and the need for insurance.

Although civil lawsuits are the main concern, professional liability insurance typically helps cover legal fees for officers facing criminal investigations as well.

Sheriffs’ group says ICE’s insurance idea sounds promising

Justin Smith, a former Colorado sheriff who is executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Assn., said ICE’s plan sounds promising and that he was eager to speak with ICE about how the plan would work.

Smith said he has shared concerns with ICE that some sheriffs are reluctant to join the partnerships because of the potential liability at a time when immigration enforcement faces intense public protests and media scrutiny. Smith said others who are partnering with ICE have already started facing legal claims tied to their immigration work, which can be costly whether or not deputies are ultimately found to have done anything wrong.

“Right now, any time you are working on immigration there is going to be a much higher potential for there being problems and having suits and issues,” he said. “They’re recognizing that it is a different environment. And I think trying to be good partners with us as best they can.”

Under their agreements, ICE warns local departments that they are responsible for the costs of incidents that give rise to liability. But it seeks to reduce the risk by saying local officers performing ICE-authorized functions are “acting under color of federal authority,” which would bar lawsuits against individual officers.

The agreements also state that local officers who face civil lawsuits can ask the U.S. Department of Justice to represent them, and that ICE will generally support their requests. But the final decision on whether to do so rests with the department.

Foley writes for the Associated Press.