Diving accident: British backpacker is stuck in a hospital in Thailand unless she raises £60,000 to fly home

[bkk6060]

If you look up the definition of reckless there are several that fit.

One is: a person making an action without proper caution.

Fits her scenario perfectly.

I bet the insurance company would win any lawsuit.

[bkk6060]

25 minutes ago, elgenon said:

So the hospital will continue to feed and house her? Will her bill keep going up accordingly? 

Yes, for sure.

So please donate much more then you had planned.

[Basil B]

To me this was an accident...

 

Cheap insurance, it needs someone to be knocking on the door of the insurance company, they do change their minds.

 

Many years ago my then next door neighbors went on a holiday with her daughter and family to Turkey, when filling out the insurance application said that both were in good health and not seen doctor in years, in actual fact both heavy smokers, were not in good health, had reserved seating at the local doctors surgery, and hubby was only just recovered from a minor stroke.

 

While on holiday he fell ill and was rushed to a local holiday, families holiday extended while they sat at his bedside but after a few weeks he passed away, just when the insurance company got his full medical history, the insurance company refused to pay another penny.

 

For weeks while her hubby laid in a Turkish morgue she kept on at the insurance company day and night, contacted local MP, news papers, ect, in the end the insurance company relented.

 

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

If you look up the definition of reckless there are several that fit.

One is: a person making an action without proper caution.

Fits her scenario perfectly.

I bet the insurance company would win any lawsuit.

That definition is rather nebulous and ill-defined. There usually has to be an element of conscious gross negligence: the legal definition could also be quite different:

 

'In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessnessmay be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action.'

 

 

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, Basil B said:

To me this was an accident...

 

Cheap insurance, it needs someone to be knocking on the door of the insurance company, they do change their minds.

 

Many years ago my then next door neighbors went on a holiday with her daughter and family to Turkey, when filling out the insurance application said that both were in good health and not seen doctor in years, in actual fact both heavy smokers, were not in good health, had reserved seating at the local doctors surgery, and hubby was only just recovered from a minor stroke.

 

While on holiday he fell ill and was rushed to a local holiday, families holiday extended while they sat at his bedside but after a few weeks he passed away, just when the insurance company got his full medical history, the insurance company refused to pay another penny.

 

For weeks while her hubby laid in a Turkish morgue she kept on at the insurance company day and night, contacted local MP, news papers, ect, in the end the insurance company relented.

 

In this instance, they had given false information on the application form, and I think there was a case for invalidating the insurance.

 

Both cases actually show though that it is not a good business decision to deny pay outs unless in extreme circumstances.  Basically, you may save in what you pay out, but there could be a huge cost in terms of negative publicity.

[ukrules]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

before blaming the insurance company, I would not be surprised if there were warning signs around not to dive into the swimming pool, these seem quite common.

Putting a sign on the wall makes zero difference to anything.

 

What language was it in and can everyone read it, did everyone see it ? Signing a disclaimer would be a different matter.

 

The owners of the pool are liable, the insurance company should make the payment and then sue the owners or insurers of the pool owners.

 

This is how insurance companies operate, they make a quick payment to the injured party and then go into recovery mode to get their money back through litigation.

 

What's the situation with the pool owners public liability insurance ? If they don't have any public liability insurance that doesn't mean they are not liable.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by ukrules

[mommysboy]

11 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Putting a sign on the wall makes zero difference to anything.

 

What language was it in and can everyone read it, did everyone see it ? Signing a disclaimer would be a different matter.

 

The owners of the pool are liable, the insurance company should make the payment and then sue the owners or insurers of the pool owners.

 

This is how insurance companies operate, they make a quick payment to the injured party and then go into recovery mode to get their money back through litigation.

 

What's the situation with the pool owners public liability insurance ? If they don't have any public liability insurance that doesn't mean they are not liable.

 

 

Quite right.  As I posted earlier the bar operators were the ones that were operating a bar and allowing access to a swimming pool at night, in itself rather a negligent thing to do.  The fact they did it consciously- it was a swimming pool party- fits the definition of reckless. I agree that a sign in the corner makes little difference.

[natway09]

A couple of questions here ,,,, was she intoxicated ,,,, did she check the depth first ?

If not then it would be deemed a "reckless act"

My accountant in Fiji did the same,,, thankfully he died 3 days later.

I say thankfully as he would have been a vegetable for the rest of his life

 

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, steve73 said:

If you watch any 10 people dive into a swimming pool, you will probably witness upto 10 different styles of dive, some much shallower than others.  If she saw many people doing "flat" dives, and she then dived deeper, the clearly she could hit the bottom where the others had not.  Perhaps she dived in a shallower part of the pool without realising.  As I've said before, it HER responsibility to check the depth knowing her own skills and limitations.

FWIW, I enjoy diving into swimming pools (warning signs or otherwise), or from rocks, etc, but I always make sure of the underwater terrain, and the footing, before doing so.. and even then I have occasionally grazed the bottom where my technique has been less than perfect... Obviously down to my own recklessness, and nobody's fault but mine..  

Imo you've become rather abstracted from reality on this one.

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, natway09 said:

A couple of questions here ,,,, was she intoxicated ,,,, did she check the depth first ?

If not then it would be deemed a "reckless act"

My accountant in Fiji did the same,,, thankfully he died 3 days later.

I say thankfully as he would have been a vegetable for the rest of his life

 

I think from an earlier posting it was established that drinking alcohol did not invalidate a claim- but obviously there is reasonableness.  Intoxication is another matter, but then again would an intocicated person be able to do a dive?

 

As to the depth? It was midnight so its maybe not so easy to tell.  Also, we do know other users were diving in seemingly.  There's a big difference between error of judgement and recklessness. 

 

The point is the insured does not have to be on best behaviour!  And most accidents have some degree of human error.

[Janner1]

We have many media programmes on the box who may take up this cudgel and help her, The Beeb springs to mind.

There is also the insurance ombudsman, they often have their finger firmly up the rear end but just occasionally they pull it out and smell the smell so give em a go.

 

If it works then the insurance company will have to pay for all the messing around and the initial claim, so that should teach a lesson.

[direction BANGKOK]

The real discussion here is about the insurance. 

 

The entire concept of insurance is just absolutely mind boggling. We pay people, who then pay other people to find ways to get out of paying us for the services we need. I truly believe insurance should be outlawed and we should come up with solutions that actually make sense and don't force us to give money to people who have a vested interest in denying us. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 12:52 PM, Kieran00001 said:

 

Are there any companies offering travel insurance which includes diving in their regular package?  I have never seen it not listed as an exception that is not covered, its just too dangerous, the fact that it happened in a pool will not make any difference to them, had she not been training to dive it would have done, but with scuba gear on they wont pay, standard practice, so no need to name as its all of them.

I couldn't read the linked article as I'm not going to sign up to do so, but surely this is diving into a pool, not a scuba diving training incident. If it was the latter, she would have been supervised, and the company SHOULD be insured.

As said, the insurance company is obviously scum, but not all. I got a pay out even though my insurance company had a glaringly obvious get out of paying situation after my accident.

[balo]

There is a reason why she was denied insurance , most likely intoxicated and fell into the pool. 

[stevenl]

16 hours ago, ukrules said:

Putting a sign on the wall makes zero difference to anything.

 

What language was it in and can everyone read it, did everyone see it ? Signing a disclaimer would be a different matter.

 

The owners of the pool are liable, the insurance company should make the payment and then sue the owners or insurers of the pool owners.

 

This is how insurance companies operate, they make a quick payment to the injured party and then go into recovery mode to get their money back through litigation.

 

What's the situation with the pool owners public liability insurance ? If they don't have any public liability insurance that doesn't mean they are not liable.

 

 

You may be right in the UK, not sure about that, but you're wrong here.

[stevenl]

16 hours ago, mommysboy said:

I think from an earlier posting it was established that drinking alcohol did not invalidate a claim- but obviously there is reasonableness.  Intoxication is another matter, but then again would an intocicated person be able to do a dive?

 

As to the depth? It was midnight so its maybe not so easy to tell.  Also, we do know other users were diving in seemingly.  There's a big difference between error of judgement and recklessness. 

 

The point is the insured does not have to be on best behaviour!  And most accidents have some degree of human error.

"but then again would an intocicated person be able to do a dive?"

Obviously not.

[fi42]

Insurance companies often use other companies such as SoS International who are experienced in medical emergencies and extractions. This adds another layer of insurance assessors who might find a reason to refuse assisstance or payout. 

[fi42]

Insurance companies often use other companies such as SoS International who are experienced in medical emergencies and extractions. This adds another layer of insurance assessors who might find a reason to refuse assisstance or payout. 

[BobBKK]

On 12/14/2018 at 1:42 PM, owl sees all said:

There are different ways of diving. Someone could dive, as they would in the start of a race, and not touch bottom in just one metre of water. On the other hand, diving in, as in springboard diving could, could be considered dangerous if the water was less than 2 metres deep.

 

I am not sure how she could hurt herself if diving in a correct manner.

You miss the point. I have owned condos in CNX, BKK and Pattaya and ALL ban diving of ANY sort (as do all condos/hotels I have stayed in).

[BobBKK]

10 hours ago, balo said:

There is a reason why she was denied insurance , most likely intoxicated and fell into the pool. 

Maybe we don't know but the larger point is you swim at YOUR OWN RISK and I'm sure there would be signs to say that.

 

No insurance company on planet earth will pay for someone who dives into a swimming pool however much we may feel sorry for the victim and their family. DON'T DO IT - simple.

Edited December 17, 2018 by BobBKK

[BritManToo]

24 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

No insurance company on planet earth will pay for someone who dives into a swimming pool

I would have thought that jumping into a swimming pool was a normal part of every holiday.

I do it, my kids do it, my friends do it. It's entirely normal and with hardly any risk.

Crossing the street, flying in an aeroplane, a boat trip, going into a bar are all far more dangerous.

Holiday insurance should cover all normal holiday activities unless they clearly state differently.

 

I'd take the company to court, and have a magistrate decide.

[mommysboy]

11 hours ago, balo said:

There is a reason why she was denied insurance , most likely intoxicated and fell into the pool. 

Probably her blood alcohol level was the deciding factor.

[mommysboy]

46 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Maybe we don't know but the larger point is you swim at YOUR OWN RISK and I'm sure there would be signs to say that.

 

No insurance company on planet earth will pay for someone who dives into a swimming pool however much we may feel sorry for the victim and their family. DON'T DO IT - simple.

Wrong.

[mommysboy]

Is there no such thing as partial liability?

 

To my viewpoint the insurance company perhaps has a valid reason for only assuming part of the responsibility, but the insured has not been that reckless within the context of the story.

 

The 'blood boiler' is that the bar operator gets away with this: it's just not on: providing night facilities and knowing that the patrons have likely been partying with alcohol; that's irresponsible, that's reckless.

Edited December 17, 2018 by mommysboy

[ukrules]

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

You may be right in the UK, not sure about that, but you're wrong here.

In that case why is there a market for public liability insurance in Thailand ?

 

 

[robblok]

49 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I would have thought that jumping into a swimming pool was a normal part of every holiday.

I do it, my kids do it, my friends do it. It's entirely normal and with hardly any risk.

Crossing the street, flying in an aeroplane, a boat trip, going into a bar are all far more dangerous.

Holiday insurance should cover all normal holiday activities unless they clearly state differently.

 

I'd take the company to court, and have a magistrate decide.

Diving implies head first, jumping is different (less dangerous). There is a big difference between jumping in and diving in. Both can lead to accidents but diving in is a bit more dangerous. 

[KneeDeep]

On 12/16/2018 at 8:36 AM, ukrules said:

Putting a sign on the wall makes zero difference to anything.

 

What language was it in and can everyone read it, did everyone see it ? Signing a disclaimer would be a different matter.

 

The owners of the pool are liable, the insurance company should make the payment and then sue the owners or insurers of the pool owners.

 

This is how insurance companies operate, they make a quick payment to the injured party and then go into recovery mode to get their money back through litigation.

 

What's the situation with the pool owners public liability insurance ? If they don't have any public liability insurance that doesn't mean they are not liable.

 

 

 

 

Oh, but it does.

 

Quote

Her sister Georgina Wilson said there had been a sign warning diving was not allowed, but as it was almost midnight and dark, Sophie had not seen it.

"She'd been having the best time of her life," she said.

"Everyone else was doing the same thing at the time and nobody was telling them to stop.

 

In addition, the insurers agent viewed the CCTV footage and have invited Sophie to challenge the decision if she sees fit.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-46567237