“I expect that they would have said to me, ‘don’t you worry about anything financial … We will sort this out, you focus on your husband. We’ve got everything else.’”
Contacted by this masthead, a 1Cover manager declined to comment, then said: “I will be disconnecting this call,” and hung up.
Stenton and his family on holiday in Byron Bay before the Thailand trip.
On the day of the second procedure, Bennett-Stenton said 1Cover had agreed to pay, but insisted she sign a waiver.
“[1Cover] had me sign a disclaimer to say that they would cover the costs for the moment, but if it turned out to be a pre-existing condition, that we would repay it,” she said.
“But even though I’d signed that before the second procedure, we still had to shell out $30,000 [for the first procedure]. And the second procedure was a lot more complex than they envisaged. So for the next two days at his bedside in ICU, they [the hospital] were badgering us for another $50,000,” she said.
She said 1Cover had ultimately covered the second, $50,000 payment – pending a decision as to whether Stenton had a pre-existing condition. However, the insurance company said the couple would need to recoup the $30,000 from the hospital directly, which could take 30 business days.
The family in happier times.
“It’s been a nightmare on top of the nightmare of my husband having a heart attack in a foreign country. I’m so livid that we’ve been put through all this undue extra stress,” she said. The pressure had been “unconscionable”.
Bennett-Stenton said her husband had gone to Thailand “for, ironically, his Father’s Day treat from the kids and I for just a quiet, chill week”.
She said the couple had been forced to pull the $30,000 from their mortgage.
“That’s a hell of a lot of money, and so many people wouldn’t have access to that, and what would have happened then?”
Bennett-Stenton posted on Instagram that she was unhappy with 1Cover’s service. When a friend replied in support, they received a message from the 1Cover Travel Insurance Instagram account which said: “kindly refrain from commenting on situations you have very little insights on”.
“The initial post [made by Bennett-Stenton] is a far cry from reality, but that’s the joys of social media. Warm regards, Eva,” said another message.
An apology message arrived from the same account some time later saying the initial message had been “inadvertently sent”.
Bennett-Stenton said her husband usually used a different insurer, but 1Cover’s sponsorship of St Kilda had convinced him to change.
The club said in a statement at the time of the announcement: “1Cover will provide St Kilda’s players, staff, and members with exclusive offers, ensuring Saints fans can travel with cover they can count on.”
Stenton was released from hospital on Friday and the Port Melbourne couple hope to return to Australia to reunite with their children in a week’s time.
“There are lots of things about this that I’m grateful for,” Bennett-Stenton said.
“He’s alive, and my mum was able to come be with the kids, and that the treatment has been so great. The ambulance came really quickly. But you know, Aussie families trust when they do the right thing and buy comprehensive insurance that they’ll be looked after.”
Loading
1Cover, which has a “poor” rating of 2.7 on consumer review site Trustpilot, is 48 per cent owned by two Britain-based businessmen, according to company documents. Another 50 per cent is owned by a company registered in the tax haven of Jersey, and which appeared in the Panama Papers with notorious Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca as its adviser.
A spokesperson for the Insurance Council of Australia said each policy would offer different coverage and consumers should consider their needs carefully.
“If a policyholder of any insurance company is unhappy with the handling of their insurance claim, they can lodge a complaint with their insurer and ask the insurer to review its decision. If a customer is not satisfied with the outcome of the insurer’s review, the complaint can be escalated to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) which can issue rulings which are legally binding on insurers.”
