Liverpool Lou

That is not true, it is extremely serious. She could have died from anaphalactic shock and sepsis, poisoned by this Item apart from the very severe pain she would have suffered. I speak as a former theatre nurse But, as I said, in this case, she did not. She did not contract sepsis, she was not in anaphylactic shock (interesting that as an "expert" you couldn't even spell it correctly) and she did not die. What could have happened but didn't happen is hypothetical and irrelevant to her case.

I have no reason to be against insurance companies which, overall, pay out in excess of 90% of all claims (there are industry statistics that are easily found that confirm that), but I am 100% against unsubstantiated claims from AN posters who, without any rational reason or empirical evidence, slag off the insurers in general (and specifically, in this case) by referring to them as "scumbags who do anything they can to deny claims" just because they do not entertain claims for circumstances that are not covered in the policy the customer signed up for. Maybe someone could explain to me why they should?

"...did not see she was heavily intoxicated". Watch the video! You'll see it there.

But consider that zero duty means you still pay a bit more than 10% As you pay 7% VAT on the landed costs (so including shipping) and you may pay a fee for the customs clearing. No, there is no "10% charge", that is nonsense. The only charge on importing laptops in the manner the OP wants to do is 7% VAT on, as I posted, the CIF value. There are no "customs clearing" [sic] charges.

No, they didn't.

Or you could just read the full OP, then you'd know what happened.

But what is, very clearly, mentioned is how he lost the money...if you just bother to read it all.

Did you read the full article?...No you didn't.

The full report says that the insurer stated that she was "heavily intoxicated".

B0ll0cks, she was pissed, heavily intoxicated, that's the relevant part and the reason that her policy was voided.

Is getting "heavily intoxicated" absolutely the most basic of normal holiday activities?

Well, you haven't been provided with any evidence that she was drunk (but then you're not a party in this case). The insurer claims that she was heavily intoxicated. Falling off the deck was something that this woman did, drunk, whether anyone else would do the same is irrelevant.

Perhaps the yardstick should be, "Would a reasonable person have fallen in that way if they hadn't been as heavily intoxicated as she was?"

Policies do not state that the insured cannot any drink any alcohol, they have exclusions for being drunk and that contributing to the accident, in this case she was, apparently, "heavily intoxicated".

It was also for Medevac flight costs to Australia.

What has the insurer got to be ashamed of? Why not name the place where she got rat-arsed and voided her policy?

Is it so hard to see why a "consumption of alcohol" exclusion in her policy applied as a result of this woman's consumption of alcohol? Or do you just think that insurance companies are charitable institution that should cough up for situations that aren't covered by any policies?

TAT has nothing to do with medical claims in Thailand or shaming insurers. You do know that she voided her policy with the consumption of alcohol, yes? Insurers will do anything to avoid paying claims for circumstances that aren't covered by the policy, as in this woman's situation.

They're "scumbags" because they declined to pay out for something that wasn't covered by the policy?

Policy holders give permission for insurers to access relevant medical information in connection with their claims so no confidentiality question is begged. Your "scumbag " claim is ridiculous if she was well oiled.

...if the policy holder voids it.

True. However, also very effective at catching tree shrews, squirrels, tokays, geckos and birds. How many people have all those in the house?

Where? Where? What's happening? Hear, hear!

"Asean Now memb...."oh, never mind!

Well, you wonder. What is "the trouble" that you're suggesting he is in that needs hiso connections? The years-ago coins incident doesn't count.