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

[smutcakes]

2 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

You do need to do correct research a medical flight is rather different than that, and even if you can use a commercial flight the you need at least 8 seats and that is if the attendants can travel with the stretcher, and 2 attendants are enough.

 

You can't use a regular seat for a medical patient wit a broken neck

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c-5WbaE6H68

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NhoqGXnXGNM

Quite, i am not sure what planet some TVF live on. Either they did not read the article, or they live in a parallel universe to that with one with common sense. Yeah ive got a broken neck and damaged spinal chord, and need medical assistance for the flight. Hey guys speak to the news why cant they be on economy Thai for 30,000 baht! I mean really are these grown ups on here with any life experience?

[SheungWan]

5 hours ago, fruitman said:

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

"Undeep"? One doesn't dive into a pool on the assumption that it is safe to do so unless notified otherwise. A reasonable person is expected to assume the reverse, namely that it is not safe to do so, until personally checked otherwise. Seeing other fools dive-bombing into a pool (I have seen this) is not a valid claim for insurance if one does similar. And if it is night-time don't even think about it!

[geriatrickid]

8 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Yes, that is mine as well.  We do not know the full details (?into the shallow end? Drunk? etc) but regardless the family should lodge a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service  https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

A complaint  on what basis? The policy wording is clear. No ambiguity.

We do not even know what the reason for the  non payment was. All that we have is an uncorroborated statement from the claimant. If the pool had signs that said no diving and they were clear and evident, she will have a difficult case, if she intentionally dove into the pool as it would be an intentionally careless act meeting the legal definition of reckless behavior. The FAC requires a complainant to support his/her complaint with facts, none of which are  presented in the article.

[RichardColeman]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Insurance firm deemed her injuries were a result of 'a reckless act'

Passing out through immigration into Thailand could be considered reckless in my opinion

[sometimewoodworker]

 

 

[SheungWan]

11 minutes ago, 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 want to race, take out different insurance policy.

[owl sees all]

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

You want to race, take out different insurance policy.

You said race. I say different ways of diving.

 

I reckon that it was one of those entries where a somersault is done in the air and the person goes in back, head or feet first. Just a misjudgment by her IMO.

[Chongalulu]

10 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

A complaint  on what basis? The policy wording is clear. No ambiguity.

We do not even know what the reason for the  non payment was. All that we have is an uncorroborated statement from the claimant. If the pool had signs that said no diving and they were clear and evident, she will have a difficult case, if she intentionally dove into the pool as it would be an intentionally careless act meeting the legal definition of reckless behavior. The FAC requires a complainant to support his/her complaint with facts, none of which are  presented in the article.

A complaint on the basis of what constitutes a 'reckless act'. That’s the ambiguity - simply putting any act under the classification reckless is not a get out for the insurers. This is quite a winnable case for her under the insurance ombudsman appeals system. A high %age of appeals are in fact won which tells you the strategy of insurers .

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed. 

 

A spelling police troll post has been removed. 

[Orton Rd]

Never engage in wreckless activity in a third world country, I never even drive here, never been in the sea, never been on a motorbike and never had protection free sex. You could not pay me to go in a swimming pool here, dive or bungee jump. If people want to do it up to them, but don't start moaning when it goes tits up please, pay for yourself.

[Sheryl]

7 minutes ago, nchuckle said:

A complaint on the basis of what constitutes a 'reckless act'. That’s the ambiguity - simply putting any act under the classification reckless is not a get out for the insurers. This is quite a winnable case for her under the insurance ombudsman appeals system. A high %age of appeals are in fact won which tells you the strategy of insurers .

Exactly.

 

Though of course we do not know all the details. If there was a clearly posted sign saying No Diving, that would alter matters. But we have no reason to assume there was.

 

Diving into a swimming pool is a fairly normal thing to do IMO and unless there are clear factors unknown to us I would certainly appeal it being declared a "reckless act". 

 

The burden is on the insurance company, not her, to prove recklessness.

[fouryesrs]

8 hours 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

 

 

 

 

I think in the states they going to sue the insurer  really really big for this s...couple of millions and they can do this without any risk and without spending a cent..for this us system is great .in europe insurance running countrys pay politicians..the law very weak for cheated customers

[Sheryl]

Actually the Financial Ombudsman service works quite well in the UK and many claims are won. And unlike going to court in the US, it does not cost anything.

 

But there is a process to be followed, first they have to go through the insurance companies stated appeals process etc. So it takes time.

[mommysboy]

I don't really see this as a dangerous act at all.  Also, let's put this in to the context of what tourists actually do when on holiday, and we will see obviously that there is more risk than when at home, leading our rather tame lives.  

 

Insurance is by definition a risky business!  The arbitrage is making money on insuring that risk.

[killala]

Really wish the young lady well and a speedy recovery   

[Burma Bill]

4 hours ago, Burma Bill said:

My sympathy to the young lass and resentment to her insurance company. Her ordeal must have been very traumatic. The diving accident occurred in a swimming pool in Pai in Northern Thailand, an area of scenic but mountainous terrain. She was taken to the local hospital but had to be transferred to a better equipped hospital in Chiang Rai. Because she needed further specialist treatment she was then transferred to the Ram hospital in Chiang Mai - one of the most expensive private hospitals in the city. If only she had been "in the know" because the Rajavet hospital is a less expensive alternative. With due respect, her journeys in ambulances must have been extremely uncomfortable, and no doubt painful, because the roads twist, turn and climb over many mountain roads as those of you who live in Lanna know. I hope all goes well for her and that she recovers. 

I offer my sincere apologies to the victim as Chiang Rai hospital was not involved. She was transferred direct to the Ram Hospital in Chiang Mai. I misread another report.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, geriatrickid said:

A complaint  on what basis? The policy wording is clear. No ambiguity.

We do not even know what the reason for the  non payment was. All that we have is an uncorroborated statement from the claimant. If the pool had signs that said no diving and they were clear and evident, she will have a difficult case, if she intentionally dove into the pool as it would be an intentionally careless act meeting the legal definition of reckless behavior. The FAC requires a complainant to support his/her complaint with facts, none of which are  presented in the article.

I suppose anything could be construed reckless- having a few beers and crossing the road for instance!

 

We are short of details.  But it's reasonable to dive in to a swimming pool from the side.  If it's from a board, well you know why put a board there!

 

In all your postings you place extraordinary emphasis on the individual imo.

[ThaiFelix]

Yes insurance companies usually deem paying out claims as a "reckless act".  Never have trusted any of them...they are just like politicians, forever making promises before the act and then..........??

[Zack61]

Insurance companies lack a soul and mostly respond in this manner. It’s in their genes. 

Having said this I must confess back in 2015 I had a very good experience with my credit card insurance policy whereby they paid my late wife’s medical bills and business class flights back home with an accompanying doctor. 

This was paid after the event and without me making any arrangements with them prior. It was an afterthought on my part to make a claim and the insurance was paid much to my surprise. 

FYI credit card was a Citibank platinum visa. 

[steve73]

9 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Exactly.

 

Though of course we do not know all the details. If there was a clearly posted sign saying No Diving, that would alter matters. But we have no reason to assume there was.

 

Diving into a swimming pool is a fairly normal thing to do IMO and unless there are clear factors unknown to us I would certainly appeal it being declared a "reckless act". 

 

The burden is on the insurance company, not her, to prove recklessness.

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

I would consider diving head first into a pool without first checking the depth is reckless (even if others are doing the same).  Lack of a sign is no excuse... but even if she saw depth markers (showing, say 2m), then an incorrectly performed dive could still result in a head or spinal injury.

When it's dark it can be very difficult to correctly asses the depth of a pool.  How many times have you seen "No Diving" signs around a kiddies paddling pool for, example... but at night it may be difficult to determine whether the pool is 0.5m or 1.5m.

To me, diving into an unknown pool without first checking the depth (and knowing that you are trained & capable of performing a flat dive), would be the same as crossing a busy road with looking in either direction.

[Kerryd]

Apparently none er, I mean most, of you never even try to think that maybe all is not what it seems.

 

And maybe gees, I don't know, the insurance company investigator may have suspicions as well ?

    

(Pics taken from the original "Inews" article - which is an online "media" site that is 98% advertisements. Funny how this wasn't apparently reported in any other media outlet - although the Chiang Rai news did copy the inews article.)

I won't bother going into detail about what else I've gleaned from some searching this morning.

As many have pointed out, a medical evacuation wouldn't be cheap. You'll be happy to know that the GoFundMe page was update to note that she'll need a specialist medical flight and that they may be needing "well in excess of £60,000".

(Almost like they were reading this thread or something !)
 

[Dick Crank]

9 hours 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.

You never want to insure with a small place like http://www.insureandgo.com a big claim can put places like this out of business. Go with large reputable companies like Allstate.

 

Many of them have fine print that excludes just about every common claim, maybe leaving open some valid but not too common claimable situations.

 

for example, any alcohol (excluded), speeding (excluded), illness happened after accident (excluded) etc etc. even on covered situations the coverage is open to interpretation that can be skewed each way depending on how they want to go.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Dick Crank

[scubascuba3]

If she took Insure & Go to court i suspect she would win, but clearly she's not in the right health to do this but hopefully will later.

 

If she'd been drinking that is a common exclusion

 

 

[cyberfarang]

Last year I visited Cambodia for 3 weeks. Before the trip checked out several travel insurance companies online.

 

When reading through all the clauses I realised that I`d hardly be covered for anything at all. The majority of policies are not worth the paper they are printed on. Most of us believe when taking out travel insurance cover for travelling abroad that we can relax and all expenses will be paid if in the event of accidents or serious illness. Don`t believe it, always read the small print first and do shop around.

[KneeDeep]

I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the insurance company. The policy itself covers quite a bit(including bungee jumping) and for an additional reasonable premium will include other activities, such as canyon swinging.

 

So if they are not paying out, perhaps there are other circumstances that have not been published. 

 

They certainly paid out in my claims over the years. Though of course nothing as large as that amount.

 

They aren't going to advertise whether she was under the influence or whether there are other extenuating circumstances. Interesting that there is no reference to challenging the decision either.

[hobobo]

8 hours ago, Crossy said:

My interpretetion of the story.

This is not diving as in scuba, this is diving as in having fun in a hotel pool (jumping in head first type diving).

I couldn't find anywhere in the story that she dived into a hotel swimming pool. A couple of photos in the original article show her with friends at some rock-pools near a waterfall. I am not defending the insurance company at all, it is merely to state that rock pools are not of uniform depth.

[irishken]

I was insured with this crowd back in 2015 when my Mother died after me been in Thailand for 7 days out of a 3 week holiday.

I had to cut short my trip and fly myself, Wife and 2 kids home and they never gave me a penny back.

They went through my Mothers complete health history and basically said F..k off your not getting anything as she had been sick for years 

with many other different illnesses, even after me getting letters from her GP and the Hospital.

 

Lesson learned and ill avoid in the future. 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

"Undeep"? One doesn't dive into a pool on the assumption that it is safe to do so unless notified otherwise. A reasonable person is expected to assume the reverse, namely that it is not safe to do so, until personally checked otherwise. Seeing other fools dive-bombing into a pool (I have seen this) is not a valid claim for insurance if one does similar. And if it is night-time don't even think about it!

Harsh, I think! Of course we think the way we do because we are older, and wiser, and have survived a few scrapes.  What she did was not out and out reckless as far as we know.

[KneeDeep]

12 minutes ago, Dick Crank said:

Many of them have fine print that excludes just about every common claim, maybe leaving open some valid but not too common claimable situations.

 

for example, any alcohol (excluded), speeding (excluded), illness happened after accident (excluded) etc etc. even on covered situations the coverage is open to interpretation that can be skewed each way depending on how they want to go.

 

That is just nonsense.

 

It's actually quite a good policy. The fact is that any good policy needs to have sensible exclusions or people would just take the mick.

 

I use Insure & Go and I read the fine print. Nothing dodgy within. 

 

There likely is more to this story. There appears to be no mention of an appeal and if successful whether monies will be returned.

 

Perhaps because she came up against a very obvious exclusion that won't play too well to the GoFundMe crowd. Who knows? Perhaps we'll know more later.

[KneeDeep]

7 minutes ago, irishken said:

I was insured with this crowd back in 2015 when my Mother died after me been in Thailand for 7 days out of a 3 week holiday.

I had to cut short my trip and fly myself, Wife and 2 kids home and they never gave me a penny back.

They went through my Mothers complete health history and basically said F..k off your not getting anything as she had been sick for years 

with many other different illnesses, even after me getting letters from her GP and the Hospital.

 

Lesson learned and ill avoid in the future. 

 

You would have had the same issue with any insurer. Pre-existing condition.

 

Quote

Any claims for cancelling or cutting short your holiday that result directly or indirectly from any medical condition you know about at the time of taking out this insurance or when booking a trip which affect, a close relative who is not travelling and is not insured under this policy, someone travelling with you who is not insured under this policy, a business associate, or a person you plan to stay with on your trip.

 

 

It's shown and stated clearly in the IPID, long before you apply and pay.