3 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Its generally not a good idea to dive into a shallow pool. With regards to all accidents an insurance company will have in their small print that the insured should at all times be considered to have taken reasonable care and attention. 

We have some villas for rent and we put signs around the pools "No Diving"

2 minutes ago, thenoilif said:

Very few pools, especially pools at hotels allow diving. Most have posted rules that say no diving. If that's the case in this situation then the insurance company may be in the right. 

Unfortunately, you may well be correct.

Tourists to Thailand fail to read the fine print on insurance forms.

No motor cycle/scooter riding, no being in a dubious area and so on. Including rules like diving head first into a hotel pool.

 Young people seem to need an insurance policy to cover the exuberence of being young and having a fun time.

 I survived youth and unlike this young lady, I was often reckless to the extreme. I hope it works out ok for her.

I wouldn't be to quick to judge the insurance company etc, there have been 3-4 stories like this were it turns out the victim only tells part of the story. Innocent victim of mean insurance company gets more gofundme donations than pissed and jump off a balcony etc.

The last 3-4 stories I can recall on Thaivisa have "all" turned out to be more to the story.

 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Crossy said:

Assuming the above information on the insurance company is correct this is their cheapest of the cheap backpacker policy.

 

iag_mf_pw_rcstd_0918.pdf

 

It covers swimming and even scuba (with restrictions), but the blanket get-out is on page 9

"We will not pay for any claim arising or resulting from you being involved in any malicious, reckless, illegal or criminal act."

If the pool had clearly posted depth markings or No Diving signage they have their get out ????

 

 

3 minutes ago, ChipButty said:

We have some villas for rent and we put signs around the pools "No Diving"

The notices are there to cover the hotel/pool management. Absence of such not the responsibility of the travel insurance company.

1 hour ago, Thaiwrath said:

Typical insurance company, if they can avoid a payout, they will.

The only happy people here are the shareholders, as their dividend will not be reduced by paying out on, what most people would see as, a genuine claim.

Nothing short of scandalous.

Imagine you were crossing a road looked to left but not the right and get hit by car coming down wrong side of road,I guess the old faithful insurance company would classified it as a reckless act as well,aah another reason not to pay out on a premium taken out in good faith 

Well, if anyone is in Chiang Mai, she is (supposedly) at the "Chiangmai Ram Hospital".

Might be able to drop in and wish her well in person.............if she's really there.

 

7 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The notices are there to cover the hotel/pool management. Absence of such not the responsibility of the travel insurance company.

Indeed they are, but their presence gives the insurers easy access to the "reckless act" get-out.

 

Even without signage diving into an unknown pool without checking the depth is, at best, unwise. But, if we can believe the lady in question, there were others jumping and diving.

2 minutes ago, Hoppyone said:

Imagine you were crossing a road looked to left but not the right and get hit by car coming down wrong side of road,I guess the old faithful insurance company would classified it as a reckless act as well,aah another reason not to pay out on a premium taken out in good faith 

The insurance company would have no means of ascertaining whether you looked in both directions or not. However, if hit by a car/motorcycle being driven on wrong side of the road, while attempting to cross that road, payout likely, dead or otherwise. From a longevity perspective in Thailand, best though to look in all directions multiple times.

34 minutes ago, Prissana Pescud said:

60,000 quid seems over the top and seems another scam.

No commercial airline would risk transporting her.

Priced out charter flights lately ? With medical attendants ?

Just now, Crossy said:

Indeed they are, but their presence give the insurers easy access to the "reckless act" get-out.

 

Even without signage diving into an unknown pool without checking the depth is, at best, unwise. But, if we can believe the lady in question, there were others jumping and diving.

Ah! The lemming defence!

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

People need to know which *Insurance firm this is who considers diving into a pool a reckless act...  yes, ok, she misjudged the depth, but thats exactly what insurance is for - cover for mistakes. 

 

It seems extremely strange that an insurance company could escape such a claim.

 

Edit: it seems its this company https://www.insureandgo.com

 

and lots of complaints of refusal to pay....https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1381601

 

 

 

 

For your information, some if not most insurance companies being in the same class as banksters, will do a lot if not anything, to refuse to pay out. and

3 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

Well, if anyone is in Chiang Mai, she is (supposedly) at the "Chiangmai Ram Hospital".

Might be able to drop in and wish her well in person.............if she's really there.

 

It would be truly sad if this was a fake story. But wait for the info, please don't cast aspersions before the full story comes out.

If the story turns out to be phoney, then vent your vitriol. Imagine you are in hospital with nothing but acid posts about you.

9 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

The notices are there to cover the hotel/pool management. Absence of such not the responsibility of the travel insurance company.

But, also covers us

I heard years ago from a friend working Insurance that their "unwritten" policy is to deny any claim at the start. Apparently 60% of customers accept this. The other 40% who then fight it were treated somewhat fairly.  I suggest her family puts up a huge fight, involving all possible means. 

 

I wonder what will happen if she really cant pay in the end? Ultimately someone has to send her home, no? It would be unreal for her to get jailed in Thailand for not being able to pay her medical bills. Likely she would not be fit for detention anyway...  

2 minutes ago, Crossy said:

Even without signage diving into an unknown pool without checking the depth is, at best, unwise. But, if we can believe the lady in question, there were others jumping and diving.

Yes, she certainly said so, and there could be other witnesses or CCTV attesting to it:

“Initially I was in shock, I never had any reason to believe the pool to have been so shallow as people were jumping and diving in before me.”

 

Seems pretty shoddy conduct on the part of the insurers. 

38 minutes ago, Prissana Pescud said:

60,000 quid seems over the top and seems another scam.

For a medical flight it doesn't and for a commercial flight where the seat have to be removed to permit it patient to lie flat with the required medical attendants also flying it doesn't.

 

Maybe a little research would be good.

30 minutes ago, fruitman said:

Exactly, this should be BIG in the newspapers, the insurance plus the hospital have to be in the spotlight.

Did you read the article? The 60K GBP includes the transport back to the UK, with medical assistance. I am sure she would not be able to simply buy an economy seat, she would possibly need a team of medical staff with her, her parents etc- that would not be cheap.

 

There is a reason their are multiple types of insurance, coverage and associated costs of those, if you buy the cheaper ones you are obviously not going to have the coverage of more inclusive expensive ones. At this stage no one really knows the ins and outs of what happened, her insurance, was she being reckless etc.

 

You carry on bashing the Thais and screaming scam when you or I have no real information on many of the aspects. Out of interest if you did the same in Cambodia or other countries what would the medical cost be there? I presume you know this given you quoted a post agreeing that it was a scam?

3 minutes ago, hansnl said:

For your information, some if not most insurance companies being in the same class as banksters, will do a lot if not anything, to refuse to pay out. and

That's your spin. Insurance companies are quite entitled to decline to pay out if in their 'reasonable' opinion the terms of the insurance have not been met. Having said that, the insurance company mentioned is one of those offering cheapish insurance and such companies can be pretty brutal when it comes to payout in grey areas of judgement. IMHO you get what you pay for and that is one reason I don't do cheap any more. In this case it appears difficult to argue that the insurance company is being unreasonable?

9 minutes ago, Hoppyone said:

Imagine you were crossing a road looked to left but not the right and get hit by car coming down wrong side of road,I guess the old faithful insurance company would classified it as a reckless act as well,aah another reason not to pay out on a premium taken out in good faith 

Not sure if you have ever been to Thailand. Driving on the wrong side of the road, even on major highways is very, very common place.

 Before crossing a road on foot in Thailand you need to cross your heart. You need to check your insurance policy to see if ir is permitted.

You need to take a deep breathe and trust that road users will avoid you.

You need to ensure that mostly, insurance is a total waste of time. Insurance companies have no morals, they are a money making organism, far removed from the original purpose of insurance (River systems in China if my memory serves me just a tad)

There is no good faith with an insurance company. They want your money at minimum risk.

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

That's your spin. Insurance companies are quite entitled to decline to pay out if in their 'reasonable' opinion the terms of the insurance have not been met. Having said that, the insurance company mentioned is one of those offering cheapish insurance and such companies can be pretty brutal when it comes to payout in grey areas of judgement. IMHO you get what you pay for and that is one reason I don't do cheap any more. In this case it appears difficult to argue that the insurance company is being unreasonable?

100% agree. (Not saying it is the case here) People buy the cheapest policy possible with minimal thoughts on inclusions/exclusions etc then get pissed, dive head first into a pool, prang a motorbike when pissed and then wonder why they are not covered for 60K GBP medical, transport etc.

8 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Yes, she certainly said so, and there could be other witnesses or CCTV attesting to it:

“Initially I was in shock, I never had any reason to believe the pool to have been so shallow as people were jumping and diving in before me.”

 

Seems pretty shoddy conduct on the part of the insurers. 

I would say it is reasonable to expect an individual to personally check the depth of a pool before diving in it.

2 minutes ago, Prissana Pescud said:

Not sure if you have ever been to Thailand. Driving on the wrong side of the road, even on major highways is very, very common place.

 Before crossing a road on foot in Thailand you need to cross your heart. You need to check your insurance policy to see if ir is permitted.

You need to take a deep breathe and trust that road users will avoid you.

You need to ensure that mostly, insurance is a total waste of time. Insurance companies have no morals, they are a money making organism, far removed from the original purpose of insurance (River systems in China if my memory serves me just a tad)

There is no good faith with an insurance company. They want your money at minimum risk.

Luckily for them there are plenty of people out there who dont read the policies properly or think that they can whinge their way to a settlement.

I am no fan of insurance companies, but both parties have to act responsibly.

4 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Did you read the article? The 60K GBP includes the transport back to the UK, with medical assistance. I am sure she would not be able to simply buy an economy seat, she would possibly need a team of medical staff with her, her parents etc- that would not be cheap.

 

There is a reason their are multiple types of insurance, coverage and associated costs of those, if you buy the cheaper ones you are obviously not going to have the coverage of more inclusive expensive ones. At this stage no one really knows the ins and outs of what happened, her insurance, was she being reckless etc.

 

You carry on bashing the Thais and screaming scam when you or I have no real information on many of the aspects. Out of interest if you did the same in Cambodia or other countries what would the medical cost be there? I presume you know this given you quoted a post agreeing that it was a scam?

1- Were there warning signs that the pool was undeep? Like "Don't dive" in english??

2- Was she drunk?

3- I've never heard of different travelinsurances (except for dangerous sports), makes me wonder which one i have.

4- 60.000 is an awfull lot of money for a thai hospital, did she go to Bungumrad or so?

5- If the flight is so expensive can't she stay here longer or go by ship?

6- Has she never leared to make a flat dive if you're not sure how deep the pool is? Myself i always jump when i'm not sure.

 

But i remain to my conclusion that the insurance is at fault, travelinsurances are for cases like this..if this story gets big in the papers other travellers will realise that they might need a more expensive insurance or pay the flight back themselves...

I'm generally a defender of insurance companies and they should not all be tarred with the same brush.

 

Insureandgo do not have a good reputation when it comes to claims payments.

 

Without knowing the full facts behind this accident it is difficult to make an informed judgement as to whether the insurance company is in the right or not. Was alcohol involved? Were there "No Diving" signs in place? Was the depth of the pool clearly stated? etc.

 

I also have no idea whether the insurers have appointed a loss adjuster to confirm the above.

 

The family needs fuller information regarding the reason for the denial of this claim. Reckless behaviour is simply not a sufficient reason in my opinion. They need to read the complaints section of the policy, appoint a lawyer if necessary and finally, as someone has already suggested, take it to the insurance ombudsman. Pressure them. Don't accept the denial of liability as a given.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, fruitman said:

1- Were there warning signs that the pool was undeep? Like "Don't dive" in english??

2- Was she drunk?

3- I've never heard of different travelinsurances (except for dangerous sports), makes me wonder which one i have.

4- 60.000 is an awfull lot of money for a thai hospital, did she go to Bungumrad or so?

5- If the flight is so expensive can't she stay here longer or go by ship?

6- Has she never leared to make a flat dive if you're not sure how deep the pool is? Myself i always jump when i'm not sure.

 

But i remain to my conclusion that the insurance is at fault, travelinsurances are for cases like this..if this story gets big in the papers other travellers will realise that they might need a more expensive insurance or pay the flight back themselves...

So you have absolutely no knowledge of the case, yet you blame insurance..... nice rational and logical thinking!!

60,000 is not for the Thai hospital, it includes the flights, medical care etc for her return.

I would jump to, i would say most who are not acting recklessly or as a reasonable person may do would. (Or if impaired judgement through drink or other substance)

You have never heard of different policies of travel insurance??? Lol. Funny that someone who admittedly has so little knowledge of insurance suddenly jumps to the conclusion that its the insurance fault and they should pay.

You are trolling so i will bid you farewell.

This insurance companies bad reviews say it all! If you are from the UK take note to avoid them completely.

 

One of the reviews offers advice on unpaid claims which may help Sophie:

 

“After months of delays dealing with a claim for about £700, they sent me £30 and quoted one of almost 200 exclusion clauses as to why they wouldn't pay the rest. Sued them at Money Claims On Line and won with costs, on the grounds that the clause was unreasonable. Don't let them direct you to Financial Ombudsmen as it could take up to two years. County Court by far the better option.”

For all we know the victim could have been drunk and doing back-flips from the roof of the swim-up pool bar. (maybe not mentioning that to the media or gofund etc) There is certainly a history in Thailand of tourists doing stupid things and voiding their insurance, then telling part of the story to get gofundme donations.

From experience, the real story often comes out by page 6 of the thread. 

Maybe I am getting cynical in my old age but there have been to many of these stories were it turns out to be the victim telling half of the story and the insurance not paying is justified.

 

1 hour ago, 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.

diving is not scuba diving. from everything I read she Dived into a pool and was not scuba diving. there are many ways to be injured when scuba diving - breaking your neck is not one of them really one of them

 

1 minute ago, Peterw42 said:

For all we know the victim could have been drunk and doing back-flips from the roof of the swim-up pool bar. (maybe not mentioning that to the media or gofund etc) There is certainly a history in Thailand of tourists doing stupid things and voiding their insurance, then telling part of the story to get gofundme donations.

From experience, the real story often comes out by page 6 of the thread. 

Maybe I am getting cynical in my old age but there have been to many of these stories were it turns out to be the victim telling half of the story and the insurance not paying is justified.

 

Peter you must have missed the TVF memo- please note every incident is a Thai scam, insurance scam etc until proven otherwise.

1 minute ago, graeme64 said:

diving is not scuba diving. from everything I read she Dived into a pool and was not scuba diving. there are many ways to be injured when scuba diving - breaking your neck is not one of them really one of them

 

Yesterday we had a Thai Navy Seal killed by a charging Longtom, now that is probably not covered!