richard_smith237

Do we have a bag photo? The size of the bag is nothing abnormal for carry on at any airport in the world - this is nothing more than a deliberate dielection.

The size or weight of the check-in bag is a red-herring. These travelators are designed to carry lots of people at the same time... a group of 6 people stood in a few sqm could easily ready 500 kgs... the weight of a suit-case is nothing in comparison, there is no way anything should have 'given' way. This was also an airport where people are 'expected' to be wheeling their baggage - this attempt at an excuse is an abhorrently outrageous attempt to avoid accountability.

Say's who ?... If the check-in staff permit her to carry the luggage, it has already been approved. Additionally, she was using a travelator at an Airport with luggage, its not as if this is mistreatment of airport equipment - its fully expected that people will wheel their 'roll on' along a travelator at an Airport. Blaming the suit-case is similar to a supermarket blaming the wheels of a trolley for failure of one of their inclined travelators. There was no indication that the lady was using the travelator in anything other than its intended manner - the size and weight of the suitcase is irrelevant as the travelator should have sufficient 'safety margins' to carry 1000's of KG such that a 20kg case is insignificant. IMO - there was a failure through lack of maintenance that caused the wheels to snag and get trapped causing a cascading failure (i.e. metal fatigue (27 years of use)) causing the 'steps to open' or guard plate to lift sufficiently to allow room for the foot to 'slip in' as the lady attempted to regain her balance [of course, we don't know that and need the video to confirm such an assumption], either way, blaming the suitcase or wheels of the suitcase is utterly ridiculous and a total 'cop-out' of any responsibility.

Does it get to the point where a travel insurer adds 'balcony height' to the exclusions of a policy ? i.e. exclusion for balcony falls where the balcony is less than 1.1m in height or made of xxx materials etc... Of course, not yet.... BUT... could the insure blame the injured party for 'risky behaviour' when entering out onto a balcony that is of 'sub-standard' height.... Clearly such exclusions do not yet exist, but how long before they do ????

It wouldn't be a waste of my time though.... I'd want to overlook any insurance which refuses to pay for medical care based on such blanket exclusions. The wording in 'some' policies allows for 'reasonable' amounts [of alcohol] while others just exclude cover if under the influence at all. There is no booze clause in my Medical insurance so I'm not too worried about that (not that I'm aware of). However, this is not 'travel insurance' which is a different beast. When taking out 'travel insurance' with World Nomads (to cover the family for winter sports) I was initially unaware of a booze clause in that - the policy is 117 pages long and the mention of alcohol is on page 88 !!! This is their wording. [Alcohol misuse; you drinking too much alcohol where it is reasonable in the circumstances to expect that such consumption could result in an impairment to your health, impairment of your faculties and/or seriously affect your judgment or exacerbates another medical condition. We do not expect you to avoid drinking alcohol on your trip but we will not cover any claims arising because you have drunk so much alcohol that your judgement is seriously affected and you need to make a claim as a result.] Slip over on ice on the way back from a restaurant and theoretically, if the insurance company think I've had too many Sakés with dinner I'm no longer covered by the Travel Insurance - I would expect this company to be reasonable, however - there is still wiggle-room. When initially taking out such insurance I was unaware of this at the time and only recently found just the mention of alcohol their 117 page policy document - I had to run a specific 'word search' looking for the word alcohol in the full policy PDF to find this out and we only get the full policy wording after taking out cover. This is also why the info in threads such as this is useful. Some companies are better and more transparent than others, so there is the additional interest in such examples regarding how transparent the insurer is. In discussing this topic, I'd be interested to learn how transparent this insurer (subject of the Op) is with their policy wording or if the exclusions seem reasonable.

And so she should - I hope she is financially very well taken care of for the rest of her life and then some. She was not using the walkway (travelator) in any manner for which it was not intended. Even if falling there should not have been sufficient failure for such a gap to develop and swallow her leg. I'm still wondering how or why CCTV is not already in the public domain. Usually, in Thailand whenever there is a video of such an incident it spreads like wildfire. The Airport have been extremely efficient at ensuring such imagery is 'locked down' - sensible of them of course (from a legal point of view), but that also makes me wonder what are they trying to hide if they are suggesting (as was reported in a previous thread) that this was the womans fault (or fault of the suitcase wheels).

Thats very good to know. Reviews of that company are good... I think they were about US$200 for a two week trip (skiing Japan) and thus seemed worth it. Then I see some people suggesting they are covered for $25 for their trips to Thailand and I wonder why those policies are so cheap. The question then begs... What did this young lad pay for his cover?.... I've always had some form of cover through credit cards... Young and stupid when I first came here I thought that was sufficient. Its easy to be led into a false sense of security.

I disagree...... genuine accidents happen all the time... ever slip or lose footing on a wet floor ?... wet balcony ?... The application of statistics and probability comes into calculation of the premium, destination and duration of trip - with the information and stats you mentioned, the insurance company already know the probability of an incident and have 'costed' that out in the premium offered. Again... we don't know the reason for rejection, but discussing the booze clause specifically - these companies know people drink and party when going on holiday. They should be far more transparent in their information so people can make 'readily' informed choices. I don't mean language hidden in a policy document, I mean to suggest that these companies should make issues such as a 'booze clause' front page policy info for obvious reasons - I believe there is a deliberate reason companies do not do this and think it borders on 'dishonest' and they should be held accountable for their lack of transparency.

If he were 'one drink over' ???... I think the clause is unfair if the boundaries are 'tight'. The policy wording of course matters, but when selling insurance to a 20 something year old, is there not an onus on the company to ensure what they are selling is fully understood by the customer ? i.e. IF when shopping for insurance I was told by an insurance provider that I'm not insured for slips, trips or falls after 4 beers (BAC equivalent of) I'd go elsewhere, many would, as drinking on holiday is a very normal activity. I've read on this forum that some providers use the term 'reasonable consumption'... whats reasonable ? ... of course, we still do not know what the cause of rejection was. That would help the discussion.

Appreciate the compliment. With a 'previous' health insurance it took me two months to secure written confirmation of their 'dangerous activities' clause. I had to push the company into a corner and answer specifics regarding riding a bicycle in Thailand (on the road), Motorcycle (with licence or pillion), Diving (only recreational) and Skiing (on piste & off with a guide)... It was a battle, however their premiums were competitive and I was being particularly bloody minded. To be honest, after checking all of this and going into detail, it is only recently that I have even been made remotely aware of a 'booze clause' on this forum. My current insurance through work covers everything no questions asked. The Cover for my Wife and Son is somewhat vague in its policy wording, I wonder if deliberately so, so, I when stepping into that 'vague world' such as ensuring cover for skiing I take out additional insurance specifically for skiing (with World Nomads) because I just can't be bothered getting into that two month 'dance' again. I have a low opinion of many insurance companies, because, even when being astute a combination of complex terminology and vagueness in the language they use provides them with wiggle room, of course, deliberately so. In this example a young lad has taken insurance, visited Thailand and fallen off a balcony. IF there is an alcohol clause its wrong IMO - falling off a balcony was not a deliberate act.

Would you be implying that the injured lad was either sitting, climbing or attempting to jump from the balcony because he was 'drunk' because you've been drunk on balconies thousands of times without an issue ??? ... i.e. because you've never had an actual accident on a balcony, its impossible that anyone else could ????

Eh? Having your bank account suspended means you can't carry out digital payments. It also means you can't go to an ATM or walk into a bank and withdraw 'cash'..... Thus - the 'suspended bank account argument' you are using to argue against 'cashless society' is a completely flawed approach to the discussion.

Beware... There is as the NDID issue. As of 4th July, any transaction over 50,000 baht requires 'facial ID' which needs to be set up at an SCB Branch and tied to a National ID card. The issue of course is that SCB has no such system for foreigners, so you are unable to register for their 'facial ID' thingy... So, the Thai Banking systems have increased their security (as per a new law), but SCB can't do this for foreigners, if you want to transfer more than 50,000 baht you have to contact your branch and sign some sort of disclaimer that if fraud occurs on your account you'll accept it !!!...

I think LL make the right assumption on the first page of this thread regarding this issue. People can be judgemental, even if he was only the equivalent of 1 drink over some arbitrary insurance limit. I do agree - Naming the company is definitely a must in these cases.

Where can that line be drawn ? My 'health insurance' has paid out for injuries received as a result of sport - would travel insurance pay out the same or count sport has a higher risk activity ? (depends on the policy I imagine). My health insurance has no such 'alcohol clause'... I'm perhaps less likely to get hurt slipping over while drunk than I am going into a tackle on the football pitch or riding my motorcycle (legally). When I read of such news it gives me the impression that travel insurance is a sham - then we criticise so many people for not having insurance, but why would they bother if the insurance doesn't pay out... OR... are there 'no fault' travel insurance policies which cover everything ??? Certainly, the marketing for such insurance policies do not make it clear that they 'exclude injuries while under the influence - customers would have to read the pages and pages of terms and conditions which use 'language beyond the every day layman' and for many are extremely difficult to follow.

Getting drunk and fighting on a balcony maybe... but just being a bit sozzled ?... Was the balcony railing low? below international standards (whatever they are) ? Its seems these travel insurance looks for any wiggle-room possible... What if he were playing football and became injured, or, crossing a road not at a crossing and was hit by a car etc, in the back of taxi in an accident without a seatbelt ??... We enter the realm of insurance using anything possible to avoid paying out.. in some case this is wholly unfair unless there is a video of him jumping off etc... We don't know the exact circumstances under which the insurance has refused pay out, but it seems outrageously harsh.

You simply 'slipped through the gaps', as did I. And you are correct, the Thai Elite statement (posted by Major Tom) contains an inaccuracy. I've been with Thai Elite for 15 years and on occasion have found their advice inaccurate - I don't trust their information at all.

Maybe yes... maybe no.... I am in exactly the same situation as you.... (Thai Elite & Yellow Book & Pink ID). A number of years ago I was only permitted to renew my 2 year license for another 2 year licence. Then last time I renewed I was permitted to renew the 2 year for a 5 year full license. As I understand it... only those on 'resident visas' can get a 5 year Thai Driving license and while the 5 Year renewable S.E. Visa (or 1 year renewable P.E.) visa can be considered a 'long term visa' it's not a Resident Visa as the 'Non-Immigrant' Visa's are. As always in Thailand, mileage varies and a lot of the time it simply comes down to the individual we are dealing with at the time - one time it didn't work out in my favour, another time it did !!!

Would people have clicked if the word 'brawling' was not used ?

Yup... that could well the the possibility - a sensible move perhaps. People are perhaps less inclined to donate to a 'go-fund-me' if it was clear the injured lad was excessively inebriated (again, just speculation of course).

They get access to the medical records etc as required by the terms of the insurance agreement. (This is pure speculation on my part) - could the medical report have stated the IP's Blood Alcohol levels which are in excess of limits stated within the policy ???... .... AND... IF so, how are the family not aware of this ?... Or are they aware, and simply not mentioning this.

That would be terrible if that was what actually happened. It wasn't. Hmmm... Read the news story of the same event - Link posted in the post above. The driver swung an iron bar at the Singaporeans head.... Has the story now changed ??... No Iron bar ?... just a verbal confrontation ?

Verbal abuse not attempted murder Swinging an Iron bar at someones head is a bit more than 'verbal abuse'... In yesterdays news... (of the same incident) - link pasted below, the Driver swung an iron bar the Singaporean managed to 'dodge'... The 'incident' has been polished to allow the driver to get away with a more serious crime. Utterly useless policing, they are simply too lazy to file stronger charges. Quote below is from the Link below:

Agreed..... .... Perhaps the insurance has a 'no-balconies' clause... (sarcasm) IF the family are unclear of the circumstances of the fall, how can the insurance possibly refuse the claim - do they know something the family don't ??? It would be interesting to learn why the Travel Insurance company refused the claim (and who this company is).... Was it a 'booze clause' ?... and if so, does that mean 100% no booze or reasonable amounts etc ?

1000 Baht for attempted murder... hmm......