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

[brianthainess]

On 12/14/2018 at 6:19 AM, flipperphillips said:

I have just read the insurance company involved is called, Insure & go.

Should be called, insure & go & not come back .

[brianthainess]

23 hours ago, outsider said:

I'm not familiar with the healthcare industry, so I'm just curious, if this is normal: "But the hospital would not perform surgery until Sophie’s family had guaranteed payment." or is it just Thailand? I thought all doctors - whether in public or private practice - have taken something like a 'vow' to save lives at all costs, or something to that effect? What if the girl's parents couldn't come up with the guarantee - the hospital is just going to watch the girl die?

They thought she was covered by insurance,as so did she.

[HAKAPALITA]

Best to remember, You left the Nanny State behind.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[mommysboy]

8 hours ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Best to remember, You left the Nanny State behind.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Sure, but remember she did cover herself with travel insurance.

[mommysboy]

13 hours ago, simon43 said:

 

 

 

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.

I think this policy allows for some alcohol- obviously there are degrees of reasonableness.

 

Ok your opinion, but I think it is just a misadventure.

[ericjt]

I'm not a fan of insurance companies, but we don't have all the facts here, do we?  Time of day or night?  Alcohol?  Anybody checking depth of the pool before diving in?  Diving headfirst into a concrete pool without checking the depth first seems kind of reckless to me.  If it was late at night, during a party, with alcohol and other drugs involved, I might hesitate to pay, too, as the carrier.  Not saying the carrier is right in this case, just that we don't have the whole story.

[evadgib]

Has the Swimming pool v Waterfall pool been established? This affair seemingly points towards the latter IMO.

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, ericjt said:

I'm not a fan of insurance companies, but we don't have all the facts here, do we?  Time of day or night?  Alcohol?  Anybody checking depth of the pool before diving in?  Diving headfirst into a concrete pool without checking the depth first seems kind of reckless to me.  If it was late at night, during a party, with alcohol and other drugs involved, I might hesitate to pay, too, as the carrier.  Not saying the carrier is right in this case, just that we don't have the whole story.

You forgot the sex!

 

 

No, then again she could have just dived in to the pool having misjudged the depth.

 

We don't know as you say.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

Has the Swimming pool v Waterfall pool been established? This affair seemingly points towards the latter IMO.

swimming pool according to the article.

[mommysboy]

Swimming pool.  Night.  There was a bar. There was a no diving sign.

 

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

[evadgib]

31 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Swimming pool.  Night.  There was a bar. There was a no diving sign.

 

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

The wording suggests that's aimed at a UK domestic audience & implies that if she had seen the sign or someone had told her she might not have done it. I'm not taking this story at face value any more than the insurers did.

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Swimming pool.  Night.  There was a bar. There was a no diving sign.

 

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

 

Placing one sign in a corner of a pool does not reasonably void the Insurance claim...  

 

[Quote BBC article: 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]

 

... otherwise this would sets up a ridiculous precedent...  as I wrote earlier, just because there is a sign or cone saying wet floor it should not void a medical insurance claim should I slip and injure myself...

 

What would be next... Insurance companies placing a sign on the dash of your car "Do Not Crash!".... thus voiding your insurance claim if you do????

 

IF you take out Medical Insurance you are covering yourself for unforeseen events... and unless deliberately trying to injure yourself there should be no grounds for an insurance company to escape what they have said they will do - pay your costs should you require medical attention. 

 

 

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Placing one sign in a corner of a pool does not reasonably void the Insurance claim...  

 

[Quote BBC article: 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]

 

... otherwise this would sets up a ridiculous precedent...  as I wrote earlier, just because there is a sign or cone saying wet floor it should not void a medical insurance claim should I slip and injure myself...

 

What would be next... Insurance companies placing a sign on the dash of your car "Do Not Crash!".... thus voiding your insurance claim if you do????

 

IF you take out Medical Insurance you are covering yourself for unforeseen events... and unless deliberately trying to injure yourself there should be no grounds for an insurance company to escape what they have said they will do - pay your costs should you require medical attention. 

 

 

I wouldn't know how to call this one.  Having a drink or two wouldn't invalidate insurance.  Imo, the warning sign is likely irrelevant regarding both insurance, and bar liability.  Really, she should be suing the bar, but TIT.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I wouldn't know how to call this one.  Having a drink or two wouldn't invalidate insurance.  Imo, the warning sign is likely irrelevant regarding both insurance, and bar liability.  Really, she should be suing the bar, but TIT.

 

 

I'm not so sure she should be suing the bar (regardless of TiT)... She simply made a mistake, I can't see that its the Bar's fault (or owner of the location of the Pool). 

 

....People take out Insurance because they know mistakes and accidents can happen... 

 

I could get hurt playing rugby or football - should my insurance be void because I am parting in physical activity which lead to accidents and injury?...  OK, its different, but even if she was drunk I can't see how the insurance can get out of this one... 

... What if she was drunk and slipped on the street... or what if she was drunk and something fell off the roof and landed on her... etc etc etc...what if, what if.... 

 

There are so many potential 'What ifs' that when an insurance company can get out of paying a claim such as any contract would need to be in volumes to cover and void all eventualities....  it was hard enough (and took two months) just to get my insurance company to clarify 'Dangerous activities'....  What one person considers dangerous is another day to day activity (i.e. Motorbikes, cycling in Bangkok, Diving, Skiing off-piste, sky-diving, bunge jumping etc etc - the list is endless but all may be considered a normal activity by one person yet considered dangerous by an insurance company who sanctimoniously attempts to avoid a claim)....  

 

IMO - the Financial Ombudsman need to be involved with this case - it seems highly irregular, unfair and quite immoral. 

 

 

 

 

 

[EL159]

I can answer some of the points raised in these posts. I was in Pai very recently with my son who ( being young) was given a flyer by a bar advertising "night time disco drinking and swimming every night". Essentially, its a big bar, with a pool, and the backpacking types go there at night in large numbers, get pissed, lark around the pool, and very loud music. You could hear it from our hotel which was a few hundred metres away.

 

Now, it would be impossible to say if this person was drunk, but I believe this answers some of the questions raised. Having seen the stupid pissed behaviour of many young people of the same age group as this young lady, I leave others to draw conclusions! As there are virtually no pools in Pai other than at the expensive resorts, I m pretty sure this would be the place.

[mommysboy]

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm not so sure she should be suing the bar (regardless of TiT)... She simply made a mistake, I can't see that its the Bar's fault (or owner of the location of the Pool). 

 

....People take out Insurance because they know mistakes and accidents can happen... 

 

I could get hurt playing rugby or football - should my insurance be void because I am parting in physical activity which lead to accidents and injury?...  OK, its different, but even if she was drunk I can't see how the insurance can get out of this one... 

... What if she was drunk and slipped on the street... or what if she was drunk and something fell off the roof and landed on her... etc etc etc...what if, what if.... 

 

There are so many potential 'What ifs' that when an insurance company can get out of paying a claim such as any contract would need to be in volumes to cover and void all eventualities....  it was hard enough (and took two months) just to get my insurance company to clarify 'Dangerous activities'....  What one person considers dangerous is another day to day activity (i.e. Motorbikes, cycling in Bangkok, Diving, Skiing off-piste, sky-diving, bunge jumping etc etc - the list is endless but all may be considered a normal activity by one person yet considered dangerous by an insurance company who sanctimoniously attempts to avoid a claim)....  

 

IMO - the Financial Ombudsman need to be involved with this case - it seems highly irregular, unfair and quite immoral. 

 

 

 

 

 

'I'm not so sure she should be suing the bar (regardless of TiT)... She simply made a mistake, I can't see that its the Bar's fault (or owner of the location of the Pool).'

 

I don't think it's about her making the mistake, as such, we all do and that's the whole point of insurance.  And I agree that the insurance company could still be liable in part or full.

 

As regards the pool operators, it is very pertinent that it is Thailand.  The law or its interpretation shall we say, may be influenced by other factors.

 

In UK/USA I would say the bar has a basic duty of care to ensure the safety of its guests. Note, they are the ones selling the alcohol, and offering the pool at the dead of night, to seemingly a large number of users.  This argument might not go in Thailand though.

 

At the least, the bar would need to provide supervision by a pool attendant, and adequate night lighting.

 

 

[Dinobot]

<deleted> InsureandGo you heartless <deleted>. How do you face your families when you go home, I’d like to know.

[cat handler]

On 12/14/2018 at 10:08 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

 

 

 

 

Did she dive into a pool from the edge of the pool or did she dive into the pool from a structure not designed for diving from (first floor balcony?), too little information but the photos in the original story show her at a rock pool, I made wondering if that's the pool they are talking about and if it is it's as risky as jetty diving.

[ChipButty]

Did they make a GFM account if so anybody have the link? Cheers

[starky]

On 12/14/2018 at 9:00 AM, 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. 

Not to be callous but hardly a justification is it? Everyone else was doing it...and how many of the everyone else's broke their necks?

[stevenl]

On 12/14/2018 at 6:52 AM, 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.

1. stupid comments since you obviously did not read the OP, she was not scuba diving.

2. scuba diving is as a standard covered on most travel insurance policies these days.

3. 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. I agree that in general diving into a pool would not be dangerous, but if warning signs around that would drastically change the situation.

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm not so sure she should be suing the bar (regardless of TiT)... She simply made a mistake, I can't see that its the Bar's fault (or owner of the location of the Pool). 

 

....People take out Insurance because they know mistakes and accidents can happen... 

 

I could get hurt playing rugby or football - should my insurance be void because I am parting in physical activity which lead to accidents and injury?...  OK, its different, but even if she was drunk I can't see how the insurance can get out of this one... 

... What if she was drunk and slipped on the street... or what if she was drunk and something fell off the roof and landed on her... etc etc etc...what if, what if.... 

 

There are so many potential 'What ifs' that when an insurance company can get out of paying a claim such as any contract would need to be in volumes to cover and void all eventualities....  it was hard enough (and took two months) just to get my insurance company to clarify 'Dangerous activities'....  What one person considers dangerous is another day to day activity (i.e. Motorbikes, cycling in Bangkok, Diving, Skiing off-piste, sky-diving, bunge jumping etc etc - the list is endless but all may be considered a normal activity by one person yet considered dangerous by an insurance company who sanctimoniously attempts to avoid a claim)....  

 

IMO - the Financial Ombudsman need to be involved with this case - it seems highly irregular, unfair and quite immoral. 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're playing rugby drunk and there is a warning sign 'don't play rugby here, the area is too small', yes, they should be able to get out of the claim.

[taipan1949]

On 12/14/2018 at 8:01 AM, catman20 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.

 

 

and this is exactly why i canceled my  insurance policy. i decided to basically insure myself. also taking into account at the premium rises once your committed to the insurance company after a few years they start to ramp up the premiums which makes you feel its almost impossible to leave them.

I know how you feel. I used to have BUPA Insurance in Thailand. When I signed up they asked me if I had any current problems so being honest I told them I had hypertension but controlled with a few pills every day so they made me sign a waver saying that they would not pay any medical coverage if it involved my hypertension. After a few years of ever increasing premiums I began to think that they could attribute just about anything to hypertension or high blood pressure and if I was hospitalized for anything they would back out of paying so I quit them. Maybe I should not have told them about my problem in the first place. I now live in the Philippines and for a nominal amount of money my medical needs are met.

[essox essox]

On 12/14/2018 at 7:18 AM, BestB said:

I do not know if her family is aware or which company or is , but she or her family can file a complaint with the ombudsman against insurance company and may well win . They can also take insurance company to court. 

yes but ALL TAKES TIME this lady needs/wants treatment as soon as possible. She needs to be back home where medical facilities are superb

[Katia]

2 hours ago, starky said:

Not to be callous but hardly a justification is it? Everyone else was doing it...and how many of the everyone else's broke their necks?

But that's the idea... I assume they didn't.  If you watch ten people dive into a pool without problems (especially if none of them comes out and says "wow, that's shallower than I thought/wow I almost hit bottom"), I could understand thinking you wouldn't have a problem, either.

[sanemax]

17 minutes ago, Katia said:

But that's the idea... I assume they didn't.  If you watch ten people dive into a pool without problems (especially if none of them comes out and says "wow, that's shallower than I thought/wow I almost hit bottom"), I could understand thinking you wouldn't have a problem, either.

How come the previous ten people who dived into the swimming pool didnt get injured ?

I quite often see people crossing the road without looking , I dont then think , they crossed the road without looking , so, I will do the same

[Katia]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

How come the previous ten people who dived into the swimming pool didnt get injured ?

I quite often see people crossing the road without looking , I dont then think , they crossed the road without looking , so, I will do the same

Well, your example is slightly different, would be more akin to the pool depth being able to change in between divers.

 

I have no idea why the hypothetical previous ten didn't.  I have no idea why she did, either.  That's pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether their lack of problems would be reason for her to think she wouldn't have problems, either.

[Kadilo]

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

How come the previous ten people who dived into the swimming pool didnt get injured ?

I quite often see people crossing the road without looking , I dont then think , they crossed the road without looking , so, I will do the same

If only everyone was as perfect as you then no one would need insurance. 

[elgenon]

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

[steve73]

54 minutes ago, sanemax said:

How come the previous ten people who dived into the swimming pool didnt get injured ?

I quite often see people crossing the road without looking , I dont then think , they crossed the road without looking , so, I will do the same

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..