1 hour ago, gerritkaew said:

why so many people from the UK have problems with insurance when traveling somewhere??

 

1 hour ago, KneeDeep said:

 

They don't read the T&C.....

And want cheap.

46 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

On the other hand, she does state that other people did the dive safely, so assume it would be safe for her.

The Russian Roulette Defence!

 

 

So straight away

 

InsureandGo 90 days per trip on annual policy

multitrip 60 days per trip

coverforyou 62 days per trip

 

So already a fail.

 

Checking the other parameters mentioned.

You need to check the backpacker insurance and compare price with coverage, but Insure and Go was over priced for the cover

 

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

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.

Pretty obvious it is reckless as far as insurance is concerned. 

9 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

You were quoting how good their trustpilot rating is which I've just enlightened you its totally distorted by people reviewing as soon as they buy, understand?

 

The only way to get meaningful rating from trustpilot is to fish out the claim ratings

 

 

No, I was quoting someone who assumed they knew it all by reading negative reviews.

Now here you are recommending an insurer run by exactly the same company, Mapfre.

So, once again, I am basing my comments on personal experience.

 

You comments about the cover being poor are nonsense and you know it.

 

You made a claim about motorbikes(up to 125cc) that isn't true. They are included with InsureandGo as standard.

Does anyone ever admit they got it wrong on these forums?

 
So why is he making such a fuss? No one knows.

Same as everyone else. She dived into the swimming pool, broke her neck and Insure and Go denied her claim that's why. What clause could they use to deny the claim?

Off topic posts and replies bickering about scuba diving insurance and back packer insurance have been removed. 

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 !)
 

So you are saying that she dived from these rocks rather than the swimming pool as is reported in the op? Do you not think thats a big detail to get wrong? Could those photos have been from a different day?

9 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

 

 

Same as everyone else. She dived into the swimming pool, broke her neck and Insure and Go denied her claim that's why. What clause could they use to deny the claim?

 

 

Anyway, let's move on. It likely wasn't a rectangular swimming pool and even if it was, from how high did she dive?

 

Easy to blame the insurance company, but you have very little in the way of facts on which to make a judgement.

 

What I know is that the Insurance companies depend on their agents to get things done. Do you imagine that someone from InsureandGo flew out immediately?

So their agent has reported back to them and I&G have made a decision based on that.

It's not as if they want the bad publicity of not paying out, but if they don't have to do so, then they won't/

Reckless is included in the Exclusions and in the IPID. Clear for all to see.

 

Either way, I hope they appeal and win their appeal. But denigrating the Insurance company is wrong in this instance, without knowing all of the facts.

4 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

4 hours ago, Kerryd said:

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 !)
 

So you are saying that she dived from these rocks rather than the swimming pool as is reported in the op? Do you not think thats a big detail to get wrong? Could those photos have been from a different day?

 

 

I thought you understood this from the very beginning, that the assumption was that she dived from rocks into a pool.

That is why I have been stating that we should wait for more info rather than slagging off a perfectly good insurance provider.

 

 

8 hours ago, Prissana Pescud said:

True, but weasel insurance companies have an "out" in this case. Nearly all tourist hotels have small signs which state that diving into the pool head first is forbidden...

 

 

I'm not a lawyer.

 

The "Do not dive" signs at hotels are to protect the hotels from being sued if someone is injured diving.

Perhaps if the sign said "Do not dive. Too shallow. Dangerous" an insurance company could call it reckless.

 

She saw others diving in so assumed it was safe.

 

I doubt that a "Do not dive" sign means that diving into a specific hotel pool is any more dangerous than diving into any body of water, so I disagree with the people who feel that the "Do not dive" sign automatically makes this a reckless act.

Edited December 14, 20187 yr by JimmyJ

 

 

I thought you understood this from the very beginning, that the assumption was that she dived from rocks into a pool.

That is why I have been stating that we should wait for more info rather than slagging off a perfectly good insurance provider.

 

 

The assumption was based on the article which says swimming pool. A few photos of the girl by waterfalls and the like proves nothing, could be days, weeks before who knows. If the article is nonsense then we might as well give up

 

The family back home should start a online/media campaign to name and shame the cheating rascals of that insurance company.

 

(p.s. on the pics above it's only her with 5 guys...must have been quite a party that day on the rocks !)

Edited December 14, 20187 yr by observer90210

7 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

The assumption was based on the article which says swimming pool. A few photos of the girl by waterfalls and the like proves nothing, could be days, weeks before who knows. If the article is nonsense then we might as well give up

 

 

Your assumption. Others assumed that 'swimming pool' doesn't necessarily mean the rectangular version. Especially after seeing those particular pictures. I mean....why are there no others? They are there for a reason methinks.

Either way, she could still have been negligent. Thus my reason for holding off on the wholesale and unnecessary slagging off of a not bad insurance company.

Ironically, you recommended them yourself. ????

11 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

The family back home should start a online/media campaign to name and shame the cheating rascals of that insurance company.

 

(p.s. on the pics above it's only her with 5 guys...must have been quite a party that day on the rocks !)

 

 

You're a bit slow. We are well past that stage. 

1 hour ago, KneeDeep said:

 

Do you swallow everything you read hook line and sinker?

It might be a rectangular swimming pool or it might not. There may have been a 'no diving' sign or there might not. 

 

Walking across the road negligently can include being drunk.

Bored of your semantics. There is a reason why the insurance company has rejected the claim and you are not privy to it.

So rather than trying to apportion blame, why not wait for more facts?

 

I do business with the insurance company involved, so I have some experience. The only connection you have is from an article in the 'i'. So let's give it a rest for now, eh?

 

 

No, I don't take everything hook line and sinker.  

 

I do take issue with people that tell me what to think when they clearly have a vested interest.

 

And like others I do not regard jumping in to a swimming pool to be a dangerous activity or a sign of recklessness.

 

I agree that some other facts may be missing, but surely you should be remonstrating with the reporters and not me.

 

So, yes, let's give it a rest,eh?

Edited December 14, 20187 yr by mommysboy

This is a classic insurence company's behavior.

This was a clear accident, not a reckless acting.

Congratulation for insurence staff and hope People will know which company it is ...

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

Pretty obvious it is reckless as far as insurance is concerned. 

According to the one report:

 

She dived in to a swimming pool and misjudged or was unaware of its depth.  She probably just assumed it had enough water in it- they generally do.  It was a simple error.  I can't see why it would be reckless either as an activity or in terms of behaviour.

 

Maybe other factors are missing.

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

3 hours ago, KneeDeep said:

 
Sorry, but just more knee jerk nonsense.
 
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/insureandgo.com seems to show a high percentage of Excellent and Great reviews.
 
 
That didn't stop you from posting ludicrous statements.
 

Don't fall for that trustpilot nonsense. They ask for reviews as soon as you've purchased at a point where everyone is happy and most give 5*. Try filtering on those that claim and you will see a low star rating, most likely 1* to 3*. Report back

 

Agree with scubascuba3. I question the validity of most of those 5 star reviews.

 

Even if they are all authentic, they are commenting on how cheap the insurance is and how easy it was to sign up.

They read like 5 word advertisements for the company.

 

Those who filed a claim have a different story.

Edited December 14, 20187 yr by JimmyJ

12 hours ago, fruitman said:

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

Its a known fact that all Thai hospitals rip insurance claims off big time.  My doctor on Samui who works in the Government hospital, tells me that the Samui government hospital is one of the richest as many injured tourists are taken there by ambulance for emergency treatment under foreign travel insurance.

27 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

No, I don't take everything hook line and sinker.  

 

I do take issue with people that tell me what to think when they clearly have a vested interest.

 

And like others I do not regard jumping in to a swimming pool to be a dangerous activity or a sign of recklessness.

 

I agree that some other facts may be missing, but surely you should be remonstrating with the reporters and not me.

 

So, yes, let's give it a rest,eh?

 

 

If you wanted to give it a rest, then why did you post again? I don't need to take issue with the reporter. I'm am addressing you who doesn't appear to be able to see the forest for the trees.

 

There she is in a bikini on the rocks and you are babbling on about a rectangular swimming pool.

Perhaps your username has something to do with why you has made so many similar posts about 'swimming pool'. It's becoming distinctly odd.

 

My point is that some, like you, are too quick to apportion blame, when you have absolutely no information other than what you make up in your head.

Like your silly statement about me having a 'vested interest'. How old are you? Grow up....really.

 

 

 

 

56 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

 

If you wanted to give it a rest, then why did you post again? I don't need to take issue with the reporter. I'm am addressing you who doesn't appear to be able to see the forest for the trees.

 

There she is in a bikini on the rocks and you are babbling on about a rectangular swimming pool.

Perhaps your username has something to do with why you has made so many similar posts about 'swimming pool'. It's becoming distinctly odd.

 

My point is that some, like you, are too quick to apportion blame, when you have absolutely no information other than what you make up in your head.

Like your silly statement about me having a 'vested interest'. How old are you? Grow up....really.

 

 

 

 

 

The accident was reported as having taken place in a swimming pool, according to reported facts in the article.  I am not making anything up.

 

Someone said that although it says swimming pool, it was in fact the rock pool, and that a rock pool could be defined as a swimming pool.  I merely pointed out what 99% of sane people typically think is a swimming pool.

 

I am not apportioning blame. Yes, we do not know if there are any damning omissions to this tale.  I am saying a swimming pool is a ruddy swimming pool, is a place of recreation, and it's unlikely that an activity like diving in to it could be interpreted as reckless.

 

The company involved has been given an opportunity to give its side.

 

Stop misconstruing what I am writing.  

16 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

Did I misconstrue "vested interest"?

 

Anyway, no more time for you.

Maybe it was me who misconstrued but you wrote:

 

'I do business with the insurance company involved, so I have some experience.'

 

Perhaps it's your loose wording and you just meant I've bought travel insurance from them.

51 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Maybe it was me who misconstrued but you wrote:

 

'I do business with the insurance company involved, so I have some experience.'

 

Perhaps it's your loose wording and you just meant I've bought travel insurance from them.

 

Yes, I've written several times that I have been with them for ten years at least and claimed at least twice with no issues. 

On 12/14/2018 at 6:08 AM, 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

 

Quite often if the pool is too shallow there is a sign saying no diving. Maybe this was displayed at this pool, which unfortunately would give the insurance company grounds to dismiss the claim as she had ignored the warning. If there was no warning sign or depth displayed sure the company should pay up.

 

6 minutes ago, BradWilkins said:

Quite often if the pool is too shallow there is a sign saying no diving. Maybe this was displayed at this pool, which unfortunately would give the insurance company grounds to dismiss the claim as she had ignored the warning. If there was no warning sign or depth displayed sure the company should pay up.

 

If I slipped over in McDonalds and injured my back I would still expect my Insurance to pay for medical care... regardless of whether or not there was a 'Caution - Wet / Slippy Surface' Cone there or not.

 

This is an accident - it's not a deliberate act, it's not like riding a motorcycle without a motorcycle license or helmet.

 

There is no excuse for the despicable actions of the insurance company... unless there is much more to this story than implied by the the article. 

 

 

It took me a couple of months for my Medical Insurance to put in writing that I was covered for Diving (with a Guide) for Skiing, and Skiing Off-piste (with a guide), for riding a Bicycle on the street.. (amongst a few others things)... the wording was initially extremely vague and only termed 'dangerous activities' which leave much open to interpretation...

 

Some, insurance companies will do all they can to avoid a claim - when the claim is honest, its nothing more than the insurance company cheating. 

 

 

 

So what you'll saying if I had a few beers and then walked by the pool and accidentally slipped on a wet spot and bashed my head I would not be covered?

 

What is expected on a holiday? No booze? No excursions? No swimming (diving) in the pool?

Are you supposed to just go on your balcony and watch the sunset?

 

Some troll comments/responses removed.

So what you'll saying if I had a few beers and then walked by the pool and accidentally slipped on a wet spot and bashed my head I would not be covered?

 

IMHO you absolutely would not be covered!  Drinking impairs your judgement, which is why insurance companies exclude claims for accidents that occur when you're under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

 

I've got no idea if this lady was drunk or was reckless in her actions.  But again IMHO, it's pretty reckless to dive into a swimming pool without checking the depth.  Sorry, but being insured doesn't excuse you from common sense.

Where would you say is the best place to put a sign telling the pool depth? On the side of the pool, same me 

I went to confirm what I already knew 2 resort pools here in this area both nice big pools one place a 4* 40m length not one sign on the edge of the pool but there was sign on the wall behind the palm tree stating it was 1.2m deep not clearly visible to everyone using the pool only if you walk past it would you see it.

The other 5* resort not one sign anywhere could I see, looking at the pool there are steps down is that the shallow end I ask myself, Dodgy,

None of these pools had any staff around the pool obviously not a law in Thailand to have a lifeguard on duty