Phuket: Owner pledges full compensation for tourists on ill-fated boat

[webfact]

Owner pledges full compensation for tourists on ill-fated boat

By The Nation

 

 

The owner of the ill-fated Phoenix dive boat on Friday pledged full compensation to passengers of the boat.

 

Woralak Rirkchaiyakarn said her company would ensure that tourists are well cared for and shoulder their medical bills.

 

Woralak said her company would also make insurance claims to compensate the injured and dead.

 

The Phoenix dive boat ran into trouble on Thursday afternoon, when it was hammered by five-metre-high waves that had been whipped up by a storm.

 

The boat was returning to Phuket from the popular snorkelling spot of Koh Racha carrying 105 passengers, the majority of them Chinese tourists.

 

The body of a Chinese tourist has been found. Owner pledges full compensation for tourists on ill-fated boat

 

Woralak said her company would also assist the families of tourists to transport the bodies of their loved ones back home for religious services.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30349452

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-07-06

[zaphod reborn]

"full compensation" = Thai compensation

 

Here's 5000 baht and a wai.  Good luck.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

9 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said:

"full compensation" = Thai compensation

 

Here's 5000 baht and a wai.  Good luck.

 

I think you had a typo there...  Surely you meant to say, "Here's 500 baht and a wai. Good luck."

 

BTW, just how much is Thai "full compensation" when tourists end up getting killed due to Thai negligence?

 

[xylophone]

Hopefully they are FULLY insured for this type of incident...…….many long-timers here would suspect otherwise.

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Hopefully they are FULLY insured for this type of incident...…….many long-timers here would suspect otherwise.

Insurance is a requirement for their tour license.

 

So they will be insured, I'm not sure of the amounts though. For diving this is 1 mio for death, for snorkeling I don't know. Since this boat was predominantly snorkeling I'm not sure which insurance they have.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I think you had a typo there...  Surely you meant to say, "Here's 500 baht and a wai. Good luck."

 

BTW, just how much is Thai "full compensation" when tourists end up getting killed due to Thai negligence?

 

1 million.

[xylophone]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Insurance is a requirement for their tour license.

 

So they will be insured, I'm not sure of the amounts though. For diving this is 1 mio for death, for snorkeling I don't know. Since this boat was predominantly snorkeling I'm not sure which insurance they have.

Thanks for the info on this...……so let's hope that the insured amounts/insurance is valid in the case of overloading or seaworthy-ness (checks) which could invalidate the cover otherwise? 

 

Guess we will only know when the final "investigation" takes place.

[Psimbo]

2 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

"full compensation" = Thai compensation

 

Here's 5000 baht and a wai.  Good luck.

Owner makes statement- Thaigeezer immediate action= knock it. Just another day on the interweb.

 

Actually reading the article may have proved insightful but far better to knock, eh?

Edited July 6, 2018 by Psimbo

[stevenl]

58 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Thanks for the info on this...……so let's hope that the insured amounts/insurance is valid in the case of overloading or seaworthy-ness (checks) which could invalidate the cover otherwise? 

 

Guess we will only know when the final "investigation" takes place.

That is for the accident insurance, boat has nothing to do with that.

[xylophone]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That is for the accident insurance, boat has nothing to do with that.

I'm not too sure how the accident or boat insurance works here, however the point I was trying to make is that any accident insurance or indeed any insurance would only be paid out if all were hunky-dory with the boat and its operation – – that means that it was completely seaworthy and inspection certificate was up-to-date and that it was not overloaded, or breaching any other rules.

 

Don't want to argue about it, but it's just my viewpoint having had a little experience in the insurance industry, albeit not with boats!!

 

Anyway, time will tell.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

I'm not too sure how the accident or boat insurance works here, however the point I was trying to make is that any accident insurance or indeed any insurance would only be paid out if all were hunky-dory with the boat and its operation – – that means that it was completely seaworthy and inspection certificate was up-to-date and that it was not overloaded, or breaching any other rules.

 

Don't want to argue about it, but it's just my viewpoint having had a little experience in the insurance industry, albeit not with boats!!

 

Anyway, time will tell.

Again, no. Condition of boat is not important for these insurance, have to pay no matter what.

 

The insurance for the boat itself would be a different matter, and there inspection certificate etc. would be important. But for the (compulsory) accident insurance these are non-issues.

[catman20]

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Insurance is a requirement for their tour license.

 

So they will be insured, I'm not sure of the amounts though. For diving this is 1 mio for death, for snorkeling I don't know. Since this boat was predominantly snorkeling I'm not sure which insurance they have.

being Thai properly none.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, catman20 said:

being Thai properly none.

Nonsense.

[Bangkok Barry]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Again, no. Condition of boat is not important for these insurance, have to pay no matter what.

 

The insurance for the boat itself would be a different matter, and there inspection certificate etc. would be important. But for the (compulsory) accident insurance these are non-issues.

 

What about the weather being an act of god get-out? Or recklessness in being out when a storm was coming?

[Happyman58]

4 hours ago, xylophone said:

I'm not too sure how the accident or boat insurance works here, however the point I was trying to make is that any accident insurance or indeed any insurance would only be paid out if all were hunky-dory with the boat and its operation – – that means that it was completely seaworthy and inspection certificate was up-to-date and that it was not overloaded, or breaching any other rules.

 

Don't want to argue about it, but it's just my viewpoint having had a little experience in the insurance industry, albeit not with boats!!

 

Anyway, time will tell.

Yes you are right If they find one thing that was not in order with boat look out  It is the insurance company get out jail free card

[Ulic]

Insurance no insurance, not a big difference. The total compensation amount split by the patrons

is a pittance and about .2% of levels in first world countries.

[xylophone]

8 minutes ago, Happyman58 said:

Yes you are right If they find one thing that was not in order with boat look out  It is the insurance company get out jail free card

Stevenl, who looks to be in the diving business and therefore has much more experience than I and probably many others on here did say that: "So they will be insured, I'm not sure of the amounts though. For diving this is 1 mio for death, for snorkeling I don't know. Since this boat was predominantly snorkeling I'm not sure which insurance they have".

 

So I think what he is saying is that for diving or snorkelling, one has to have insurance to cover those activities and death/injury as a result of these, and I can see the logic there. 

 

However, and this is where I do know insurance companies well, they could argue the point that these lives were not lost when they were actually diving or snorkelling, but they lost their lives when they fell in the water when they were on a boat which sank/turned over as a result of.........for example: –

– – Poor maintenance.

– – Not seaworthy in one respect or another (inspection/licence up-to-date?)

– – Fault on behalf of the captain/crew. Etc,etc.

 

Or if they didn't take that tack (sorry about the pun) the insurance company could argue that no lives would have been lost if everything was in order with the boat, its maintenance, it certificates, registration etc, not to mention whether or not the captain ignored a weather warning (that's presuming that something untoward is found in these areas).

 

The lengths to which insurance companies would go to in order not to have to pay out what would seem to be a vast amount of money is, in some cases, unbelievable.

 

[Somchai Logic]

A Full Wai each.

Careful not to lift the bar too high 

[Somchai Logic]

Phuket: Owner pledges full compensation for tourists on ill-fated boat

And therein lies the biggest problem - It was always up to the B-Man 

[Cake Monster]

That will be if they are able to catch up with him.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

What about the weather being an act of god get-out? Or recklessness in being out when a storm was coming?

 

44 minutes ago, Happyman58 said:

Yes you are right If they find one thing that was not in order with boat look out  It is the insurance company get out jail free card

Both wrong, that will not affect any claims on the accident insurance.

[stevenl]

19 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Stevenl, who looks to be in the diving business and therefore has much more experience than I and probably many others on here did say that: "So they will be insured, I'm not sure of the amounts though. For diving this is 1 mio for death, for snorkeling I don't know. Since this boat was predominantly snorkeling I'm not sure which insurance they have".

 

So I think what he is saying is that for diving or snorkelling, one has to have insurance to cover those activities and death/injury as a result of these, and I can see the logic there. 

 

However, and this is where I do know insurance companies well, they could argue the point that these lives were not lost when they were actually diving or snorkelling, but they lost their lives when they fell in the water when they were on a boat which sank/turned over as a result of.........for example: –

– – Poor maintenance.

– – Not seaworthy in one respect or another (inspection/licence up-to-date?)

– – Fault on behalf of the captain/crew. Etc,etc.

 

Or if they didn't take that tack (sorry about the pun) the insurance company could argue that no lives would have been lost if everything was in order with the boat, its maintenance, it certificates, registration etc, not to mention whether or not the captain ignored a weather warning (that's presuming that something untoward is found in these areas).

 

The lengths to which insurance companies would go to in order not to have to pay out what would seem to be a vast amount of money is, in some cases, unbelievable.

 

Again, no. This is accident insurance, not boat insurance. And it is clear now insurance payment will be 1 Mio for death.

[xylophone]

29 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Again, no. This is accident insurance, not boat insurance. And it is clear now insurance payment will be 1 Mio for death.

Yes, thinking back on this (nearly 30 yrs!) if covered by accident insurance, then that would seem to be applicable here because irrespective of the boat and other factors, this was "death by accident", so a payout would be applicable.

 

A good memory jogger though!

[Happyman58]

12 hours ago, xylophone said:

Yes, thinking back on this (nearly 30 yrs!) if covered by accident insurance, then that would seem to be applicable here because irrespective of the boat and other factors, this was "death by accident", so a payout would be applicable.

 

A good memory jogger though!

1

Ok, I have read what you both say. I will tell you a story how an insurance once got out of paying millions A few years ago there was a real wet season in Aus and in a town called Emerald they have this big dam called the Fairburn Dam There was so much rain it overflowed big time and flooded the town. Everybody thought hey we are ok we have flood insurance until some smart arse came up with the idea, not the case. He advised the insurance company they don't have to pay because it stated in the policy most people they were only covered from a natural disaster like cloudburst which caused the flooding and not by human intervention such as Dam overflowing. That is how low an insurance company will sink to save money and it saved them millions. Maybe different here who knows. Mind you the guy who thought of that would have made enough money from the insurance company to retire for life

[hotchilli]

19 hours ago, stevenl said:

Insurance is a requirement for their tour license.

 

So they will be insured, I'm not sure of the amounts though. For diving this is 1 mio for death, for snorkeling I don't know. Since this boat was predominantly snorkeling I'm not sure which insurance they have.

You're of course presuming they have a licence, and of course presuming the insurance company won't look for an "opt-out" clause !!

[stevenl]

20 minutes ago, Happyman58 said:

Ok, I have read what you both say. I will tell you a story how an insurance once got out of paying millions A few years ago there was a real wet season in Aus and in a town called Emerald they have this big dam called the Fairburn Dam There was so much rain it overflowed big time and flooded the town. Everybody thought hey we are ok we have flood insurance until some smart arse came up with the idea, not the case. He advised the insurance company they don't have to pay because it stated in the policy most people they were only covered from a natural disaster like cloudburst which caused the flooding and not by human intervention such as Dam overflowing. That is how low an insurance company will sink to save money and it saved them millions. Maybe different here who knows. Mind you the guy who thought of that would have made enough money from the insurance company to retire for life

Nothing to do with the accident insurance we're talking about here.

[stevenl]

15 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

You're of course presuming they have a licence, and of course presuming the insurance company won't look for an "opt-out" clause !!

It is virtually impossible to be in the tourism business here and run a boat like that without that license.

And don't let lack of insurance knowledge prevent you posting about it.

[Tradewind777]

OMG Thai compensation? Enough for a bus fare to the airport!

[inThailand]

22 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

"full compensation" = Thai compensation

 

Here's 5000 baht and a wai.  Good luck.

You meant 500B? The generous standard. 

[inThailand]

We don't need no stinking insurance! 

and

No stinking life jackets 

and

No stinking licenses

and

and

and... No...