During a prepaid, self-conducted tour of Iceland, My wife and I encountered an Arctic storm on May 14th, 2012, blocking our departure from Husavik to Egilsstader. We had no options other than to leave our car in Husavik which terminated our car rental agreement, take a flight to Reykjavik, and initiate a new car rental agreement. The situation (1) prevented our use of two consecutive prepaid vouchers for Egilsstader and Skaftafell, (2) required purchase of air travel from Husavik to Reykjavik, (3) required a new car rental for the remainder of our stay, (4) required alternate lodging for two nights prior to resumption of our prepaid itinerary.
We submitted a claim to insurance provider Allianz Global Assistance under the provisions in our policy including:
"Trip cancelation and interruption protection: (Compensation will include interruptions from) -- bad weather resulting in the complete cessation of services by the tour operator for at least 24 consecutive hours.." - Denied because "cancellation of services by a travel supplier was not the cause of your loss..". In fact, Avis recommended cancellation at Husavik because continuation of the itinerary was impossible. As we were on a prepaid itinerary of (as Allianz concedes) a tour, I was the tour operator.
"Travel delay coverage: Coverage for ---reasonable additional accommodation and traveling expenses (including) carrier caused delay (including bad weather).." - Denied by Allianz because I was not a common carrier.
"Missed connection coverage: Reasonable additional transportation and accommodation expenses needed to reach your destination from being delayed by bad weather while en route to a departure provided the car was scheduled to arrive at the point of departure at least two hours before the scheduled time of departure.. ." - Denied because I was not on (sic) route to a departure; policy did not define point of departure which in this case was the road to Egilsstader and closed for 48 hours.
No contact was made by Allianz for clarification of details prior to sending their refusal. At least the first point above (and likely the remainder) qualifies us for compensation. The policy was purchased with the understanding that such unavoidable changes of prepaid arrangements would be covered. One shouldn't need a lawyer to interpret such a policy to avoid such bait and switch tactics.