Etaoin Shrdlu

https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index

I was referring to holders of extensions of stay under non-immigrant visas, not PR holders. And yes, such would need to be obtained before departure for those who are eligible. I am aware that it is not possible to obtain an endorsement in one's certificate of residence at Suvarnabhumi. I don't know what the situation would be if one had a valid endorsement in the certificate of residence, but sought to obtain the re-entry visa at Suvarnabhumi. This might happen if one obtained a single entry visa, used it, and then sought to obtain another re-entry. Are you sure that a second re-entry could not be obtained as Suvarnabhumi if one still had time remaining on the endorsement in the certificate of residence? I haven't encountered this situation, so I really don't know.

I assure you, I do know what a PoA is. I also know that a PoA authorizing someone to represent a seller of a property does not necessarily authorize that person to receive payment in their name in lieu of the property owner's. What I don't know is how the Land Department would view such an arrangement. Thank you for clarifying that the Land Department does not care about such matters. Even if all goes well at the Land Department, is the OP sure that the owner of the property (daughter) could/would not later raise the issue that her agent (father) did not have permission to receive the funds into his account? I think that having this spelled out in the PoA may reduce the risk of this happening.

My concerns would be the following: Daughter shows up at some future point and denies she gave the PoA to her father. If that happened, I would expect things to end up in court. How confident is the OP that this would not occur? I say this because I am curious as to how the PoA was obtained if the daughter is uncontactable. Whether the Land Department will approve the transfer of the Chanote if checks are made out to someone other than the legal owner (daughter) may depend upon the wording of the PoA and perhaps also the procedures of that particular Land Department office.

No. In Australia, due to her svelte physique and diminutive stature, she's called "Tiny".

I think that until you actually receive PR, your sole requirement will be to have a valid non-immigrant visa (re-entry visa) in your passport in order to keep your current extension of stay and your PR application alive. I understand one can be obtained at the airport, but have no experience getting one there. Given the importance of keeping your extension of stay and PR application alive, you might be well-advised to call immigration just to make sure. Things may have changed since the 1990s when I received PR.

I think that after a couple of years with no transactions, at least some Thai banks will start to charge a monthly service charge until the funds in the account are exhausted. Back in 2018 a law was proposed to require Thai banks to send to the Bank of Thailand any funds in accounts that had been dormant for ten years. I'm not sure whether this law was put into force. News reports at the time said that the account holder or heirs could claim the funds at any time. So if this law came into effect and your account hasn't been reduced to zero by monthly fees, you should be able to get at least some of your money back.

I went through the same exercise a while back when I tried to set up the PEA as a biller on SCB's website. Only the MEA appears in the dropdown menu for "Utilities" when setting up billers. I gave up trying to use SCB for paying PEA bills and went to the PEA's own portal: https://eservice.pea.co.th/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2f and was successful. I don't know if the PEA's website restricts usage to Thai IP addresses or not.

Some insurers put no time or other limitation on their ability to invoke the pre-existing exclusion clause. In such cases, anything that the insurer believes existed at the time of proposal would be excluded, regardless of how long after policy inception or subsequent renewals it was discovered. It may not matter whether the insured was ever previously aware of or suspected they had a condition. If it was likely to have existed at the time of proposal or inception of cover, the insurer may seek to exclude cover. Others insurers may agree to insure some conditions after a waiting period, however the passage of the waiting period does not negate an insurer's ability to deny a claim or entirely void a policy based upon non-disclosure on the proposal form.

My guess is that the carve-back of cover for those specific conditions would only apply if they were first diagnosed or discovered after the policy had been in force for six months. If any of these conditions were declared on the proposal form or found during the physical exam, they may be excluded full stop, depending upon the company's underwriting guidelines and the circumstances of the condition. I think the underwriter is taking the position that if these conditions had not been previously diagnosed or suspected at the time of proposal and did not surface until after six months into the policy period, they will presume that the proposer was not exercising adverse selection against the insurer by obtaining cover when there was knowledge or suspicion that something was amiss. This is only my opinion and WRLife would need to explain their definition of pre-existing condition and how this carve-back would work.

My suggestion would be to ask the broker to get that in writing from someone in a position of authority at the insurance company. Otherwise you may find that it is an issue when you have a claim.

My daughter's 7161 has not arrived yet. I received my 7162 early last month.

Yes, April International appears to have managing general agency agreements with AXA and perhaps other insurers that would give them delegated underwriting and claims paying authority on behalf of those insurers. From April International's UK website: 1. If your insurance is contracted from outside of the EU/EEA the product is designed, administered and distributed by APRIL International UK and insured by either AXA XL Insurance Company UK Limited or AXA XL Underwriting Agencies Limited. Their French website also indicates that they act as an MGA, but I was not able to find similar, detailed wording.

Pining for the fjords? If so, definitely Norwegian Blues.

From April Thailand's website, it looks like they use LMG's Thai operation to provide medical insurance locally. I am aware that April may offer medical insurance directly from their office in France, but I don't know which insurers they use. April Thailand is quite straightforward in stating their status as a broker and the insurer they use locally. I believe that their office in France would be equally transparent. Perhaps someone who has used April's French office could take a look at the policy that April sent them and advise which insurer issued the policy. If either April Thailand or April France refers or places business with WRLife, it would be interesting to see what April has to say about WRLife's status.

This is a bit surprising given that WRLife appears to be an insurance broker and not an insurance company. In most situations, a broker would be reluctant to refer their client to another broker. However it is possible that AA believes WRLife to be an insurer. Many insurance brokers have market security standards and will review insurers' financial status and claims-paying ability (and willingness) before they will place their clients' business with them. It would be interesting to ask AA if they have sought to perform due diligence on WRLife and ask them what they found.

The Office of the Insurance Commissioner does set out tariff rates for certain lines of insurance, including motor. It is quite possible that the OIC has revised tariff rates upwards recently, so Roojai is likely telling the truth. In more advanced insurance markets, the regulator seeks to safeguard insurer solvency by requiring insurers to maintain certain solvency and capital adequacy ratios, but is more relaxed about what rates and premiums an insurer can charge. Thailand has historically sought to accomplish the same thing by enforcing pricing tariffs and has been rather lax about capital adequacy and solvency measures. While I think Thailand is shifting to the more modern approach, the OIC still publishes tariff rates to which insurers must adhere, although they can deviate from the tariff by giving approved discounts or levying surcharges.

That's a good sign, but could Patrick also provide information with respect to the identity of the insurance company that is actually providing the coverage? A professional insurance broker has no reason to withhold this information and very good reasons for disclosing it. If WRLife is actually an insurance company and not a broker, can Patrick provide information on where one can find financial reports or ratings from rating agencies that would provide an indication of its financial strength? Testimonials can be useful, but are not a substitute for proper due diligence.

Lorentz Capital Ltd appears to be a dormant company in the UK with paid up capital and cash in the bank of $400,000. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13131191/filing-history Same person appears as director of Lorentz Capital Ltd as WRLife LLP.

Lorentz is the surname of one of the principals of WRLIfe LLP: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/OC401682/officers Is that supposed to be the security behind the insurance WRLife provides?

Something is not right if a policyholder asks for clarification of the status of their insurer or broker and does not receive a satisfactory answer. I would say that it is better to pay a higher premium to an insurer that has a satisfactory rating from Standard & Poor or AM Best, has an established track record of paying claims and does not dodge questions about its status.

Lloyds is really an interesting place with much history. Lots of very specialized risk and insurance knowledge among the Lloyds brokers and underwriters.

An insurance broker is taking a big risk if they issue coverage-bearing documents (policy, cover note or similar) and don't disclose the name of the insurer that actually bears the risk. They could be deemed the insurer in a court of law if there is a dispute.

The Orias document would seem to confirm that WRLife is a broker and not an insurance company. This seems consistent with what I get from Dun & Bradstreet:

Within the insurance industry, an insurance company is often referred to as an underwriter. Within an insurance company, an underwriter is the person who actually evaluates risks and determines policy terms, conditions and premiums. When someone in the insurance industry refers to an underwriter, they can mean either an insurance company or an individual in an insurance company. It depends upon the context. A broker or other intermediary is not referred to as an underwriter.