Mum's 'relief' as £60k raised to bring injured daughter home from Thailand after horrific accident

[Rod the Sod]

It is really interesting to hear from all the Insurance experts on the Forum who clearly know very little about how insurance works. It is priced according to risk. If you want "cheap" which 90% of this Forum would probably go for, then expect very little cover. If you want to pay a load, you get a load. Simple as that. Now, Insurance Companies do not pay out for any old claim so they, along with every other industry in the world, set out terms and conditions to specify what is covered and what is not. One thing they will not cover is where the Insured does something stupid and harms themselves. So if you get paralytically drunk and fall under a bus, why should the Insurance Company (and by definition, all the other people that pay a premium in good faith) pay out for your stupidity. My bet is that this was the cheapest value she could find, and so when she dived into a shallow swimming pool and smashed herself up doing so when there was a warning sign saying "No Diving", it clearly is wide of the mark for the Insurer to pay. Everybody wants something for nothing and hates Insurers it would seem. If that is the case, don't insure and cover your own risk. Insurers are not charities or places of last resort for people who find themselves in a mess, they are companies with responsibilities to their shareholders.

 

Now, you show me an Insurer that states in the T & C "We will pay up even if you are drunk, you are diving in a very shallow pool head first late at night, and when there are signs saying "No Diving", and of course there is no limit to how much we will pay for the rest of your life". Premium US$1,250,000. Wanna pay??

 

To try and make it easy to grasp, how would you feel if your Insurance Company wrote to you and said "sorry, but we are going to use some of your premium to pay out for a dickh**d that just got drunk and threw himself under a bus. Less for you in the pot I am afraid, but hey....that's life. By the way, your premium will double to allow for us to do this. Suck it up and get on with it".

 

Just saying....

[Kadilo]

7 minutes ago, Burma Bill said:

The company she used in the UK was "Insure and Go" based in Southend-on-Sea. (ref" The Sun"). Please think wisely before considering this company for your travel insurance.

I used them many years ago and had a bad experience and vowed to never use them again. 

[CanadaSam]

14 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Happy to hear that she is recovering and OK to go home, but of course, if her shyster insurance company hadn't been such a bunch of dogs, the fundraiser would not have been necessary. People dive into pools all day long without drama, so to suggest her doing so was "reckless" is just mean. I hope other tourists take note and put these bandits out of business. I wouldn't insure my goldfish with them after this.

INSURE AND GO.....

Edited December 19, 2018 by CanadaSam
Named the company.....

[SheungWan]

34 minutes ago, orchidfan said:

My friend has annual, multi trip, travel insurance with his bank HSBC.

When he broke his back snow skiing in Spain they took care of all local hospital bills and flew him back to Hong Kong Business class. No quibbling. ..and no "this is a dangerous activity".

Insure with a GOOD reputable company!

Terms and conditions. Terms and conditions. Which will have skiing covered, but probably not if there were restrictions on the skiing location or conditions. And skier considered to have taken reasonable care.

Edited December 19, 2018 by SheungWan

[SheungWan]

26 minutes ago, Burma Bill said:

The company she used in the UK was "Insure and Go" based in Southend-on-Sea. (ref" The Sun"). Please think wisely before considering this company for your travel insurance.

Like sign up with another company offering a one hundred pound annual insurance policy?

Edited December 19, 2018 by SheungWan

[CanadaSam]

23 minutes ago, Rod the Sod said:

It is really interesting to hear from all the Insurance experts on the Forum who clearly know very little about how insurance works. It is priced according to risk. If you want "cheap" which 90% of this Forum would probably go for, then expect very little cover. If you want to pay a load, you get a load. Simple as that. Now, Insurance Companies do not pay out for any old claim so they, along with every other industry in the world, set out terms and conditions to specify what is covered and what is not. One thing they will not cover is where the Insured does something stupid and harms themselves. So if you get paralytically drunk and fall under a bus, why should the Insurance Company (and by definition, all the other people that pay a premium in good faith) pay out for your stupidity. My bet is that this was the cheapest value she could find, and so when she dived into a shallow swimming pool and smashed herself up doing so when there was a warning sign saying "No Diving", it clearly is wide of the mark for the Insurer to pay. Everybody wants something for nothing and hates Insurers it would seem. If that is the case, don't insure and cover your own risk. Insurers are not charities or places of last resort for people who find themselves in a mess, they are companies with responsibilities to their shareholders.

 

Now, you show me an Insurer that states in the T & C "We will pay up even if you are drunk, you are diving in a very shallow pool head first late at night, and when there are signs saying "No Diving", and of course there is no limit to how much we will pay for the rest of your life". Premium US$1,250,000. Wanna pay??

 

To try and make it easy to grasp, how would you feel if your Insurance Company wrote to you and said "sorry, but we are going to use some of your premium to pay out for a dickh**d that just got drunk and threw himself under a bus. Less for you in the pot I am afraid, but hey....that's life. By the way, your premium will double to allow for us to do this. Suck it up and get on with it".

 

Just saying....

Rod, I gotta tell you, bro, the AMOUNT of times I have bought travel insurance, and never used it, gave me some sort of satisfaction that SOMEBODY would have benefited from all those premiums being paid....

 

Your information is accurate, but is missing one VITAL fact, THIS insurance company's failure to deal with this ONE particular case, means that it loses its one vital source of income, and it goes bankrupt.

[SheungWan]

People complaining about cheap insurance companies is very similar to the complaints about the experience of travelling economy class with airlines. "Totally unacceptable", "will never travel with them again", and so on and so on. But they invariably do. Why? Because cheapness trumps all other considerations. And so it goes.

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

People complaining about cheap insurance companies is very similar to the complaints about the experience of travelling economy class with airlines. "Totally unacceptable", "will never travel with them again", and so on and so on. But they invariably do. Why? Because cheapness trumps all other considerations. And so it goes.

All I require from an aircraft is it takes off and lands, near the advertised times, without crashing in the middle.

I can pack my own sandwiches.

Edited December 19, 2018 by BritManToo

[PerkinsCuthbert]

I find myself disagreeing with the bulk of opinion here. While it is charitable of the online community to fund this girl's repatriation and continuing medical care, in the light of what is known about the pool and her actions, it seems to me reasonable for the insurance company to reject her claim: 

- there was apparently a sign poolside expressly forbidding diving; 

- even had she not seen the sign, it was incumbent on the girl, as a mature adult, to ascertain the depth of the pool, and whether it was safe to dive in.

- this was rightly a purely business decision by the insurer, based on the facts at hand. Commercial insurance companies are not in the business of being compassionate, unless it suits their commercial purposes; their shareholders would be up in arms if they allowed claims left, right and centre.

- reading some of the complaints about this particular company from refused claimants, I have the impression that at least some felt that the company should bear the loss, no matter the degree of negligence on their part. Such is life, and such is human nature.

Ultimately, though, one has to be glad that the girl is going home. 

 

[boonrawdcnx]

wrong on many accounts.begging for medical bills that could have been avoided.she chose to dive in a rock pool in pai.if a sign was there then it is they for a reason.no wonder the insurance refused.they ask everyone to help her cause why not remortage their house or anything else but begging to everyone please help us.i,am sure they will be another begging bowl out soon i wonder  who it will be.if you take out insurance make sure u check the do,s and don,t,s.too many begging for hands out when something happens now

 

What a weird post!? Accidents happen - who cares if there was a sign or not what happened can not be reversed.

If you don’t want to help than don’t nobody is forcing you to do anything.

And if there is another “begging bowl” - as you put it - going around people can choose to help or not it’s up to them.

 

Obviously enough people cared about the plight of the young woman after the accident and small amounts chipped in by a lot of people don’t hurt anybody but made all the difference for the unfortunate woman and her family.

 

Thank god there are still plenty of people out there who have compassion for others in need.

 

Actually it feels pretty good to help others in need with a small amount not even worth talking about and see the family reach their target! You should try it sometime - and just before you close your eyes to sleep at night you think - “today was a great day I helped somebody in a desperate situation” - Best sleep ever!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

[JLCrab]

59 minutes ago, BestB said:

1 hour ago, JLCrab said:

The linked Leicestershire Live article quotes the insurer as saying that they have CCTV video of the incident.

In that case not much else could be said 

No it just means there may be some reason behind the claim denial that has yet to be mentioned in the press or on here.

[KittenKong]

50 minutes ago, Rod the Sod said:

Now, Insurance Companies do not pay out for any old claim so they, along with every other industry in the world, set out terms and conditions to specify what is covered and what is not. One thing they will not cover is where the Insured does something stupid and harms themselves. So if you get paralytically drunk and fall under a bus, why should the Insurance Company (and by definition, all the other people that pay a premium in good faith) pay out for your stupidity. My bet is that this was the cheapest value she could find, and so when she dived into a shallow swimming pool and smashed herself up doing so when there was a warning sign saying "No Diving", it clearly is wide of the mark for the Insurer to pay.

I buy an annual travel insurance policy for my trips outside of Thailand. I always look for the cheapest option that has the highest cap for medical costs, and at the same time I always look for the insurer that excludes stupid activities like skiing, climbing, jumping, diving, motorbike riding etc etc. I would never do any of these things, sober or not, and I fail to see why I should pay higher premiums to cover other idiots who do. So give me a cheap policy with many exclusions every time.
It's exactly the same with my car insurance: I always take all the options that give me a lower premium (named driver only, leisure travel only, high excess, dashcam). Why should I pay high premiums to cover people who let any idiot drive their car, and who use it for going to work every day, and who expect the insurance to pay for every little scratch?

[Just Weird]

15 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Happy to hear that she is recovering and OK to go home, but of course, if her shyster insurance company hadn't been such a bunch of dogs, the fundraiser would not have been necessary. People dive into pools all day long without drama, so to suggest her doing so was "reckless" is just mean. I hope other tourists take note and put these bandits out of business. I wouldn't insure my goldfish with them after this.

"A late night dive into [a shallow section of the dimly-lit] bar’s swimming pool in a remote area of Thailand, north of Bangkok, breaking two vertebrae, compressed her neck, leaving her unable to feel anything from the chest down".

This quote from the linked report suggests that the insurer may have a point.  As the neither the girl nor her family seem to be complaining about the insurer, perhaps they, too, think it has a point.   Using your logic every insurer with policy exclusions (i.e. every single insurance company, without exception) must be mean shysters, bandits and dogs.  Bit OTT, don't you think?

 

"People dive into pools all day long without drama..."

That comment needs to be read in the context of this particular incident which, very clearly, was not an everyday diving-into-a-pool situation.

 

Which company do you use to insure your goldfish, out of interest?

Edited December 19, 2018 by Just Weird

[Sheryl]

We do not know all the circumstances. The family has, quite rightly, appealed the insurance company's decision to the Financial Ombudsman who will make the ultimate determination as to whether or not the circumstances are such that denial on grounds of reckless behavior is justified. Sounds like CCTV footage is available which will help.

[Vermaric]

15 hours ago, NanLaew said:

You have goldfish? What sort?

They are obviously goldfish with a pedigree.

[dreaming]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Good luck with finding an alternative insurance company at the same price who offer cover for diving in shallow pools.

How deep is a shallow pool? If they didnt specify that then they cant use it as an excuse.

[marko kok prong]

The wallpaper and the pillow case in the photos has left me feeling somewhat bilious.

[fouryesrs]

11 hours ago, Canuckabroad said:

 

I don’t think the insurance company knew about the sign. She was injured and transported to two hospitals for surgery within about 48 hours.  I’ve had emergency surgery too while traveling and the insurer has a very short window to say whether or not they’ll cover you.  For small amounts, maybe they’ll tell you to pay it and file a claim later, but in this case it would be her friends and family making desperate phone calls to a toll free number while the hospital’s rep is standing there.  Someone at the insurance company saw the following: diving into a pool, no lifeguard, and maybe also the time that it happened.  Based on that they used their reckless behaviour clause to deny her.

 

A no diving sign and other fine evidence would come up if they were trying to sue her to recover the costs over an incorrect claim.  And in my opinion, that’s what makes it all worse, because even a crap insurance company should have paid the relatively small amount to save her life and then try to recover it.  A 60k bill isn’t really that high.  It’s not like this accident happened in the US or Japan where it could be a 50 times that.

what a <deleted>....g BS insurance...but I guess this is every insurances way to conduct business...<deleted>....k ur customer over really well...an international plague...

[Chongalulu]

6 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

The insurance company claimed it was a "reckless" act and they will not cover it.

I agree with the insurance company.

It wasn’t a specific exclusion like riding a motorcycle or scuba diving etc.There will be consideration by the ombudsman on what constitutes reckless- it isn’t down just to the insurers. She has a decent shot at winning.

[StefanBBK]

15 hours ago, Compass Call said:

Apparently, there was a sign at the pool saying "No Diving". Probably for a very good reason.

The insurance company are bound to have found out about it and therefore refused to pay out.

Insurance companies are very good at finding out things that would mean that they could reuse a claim.

Confessing that I also dove into many pools with that sort of sign. (after checking the depth though). I do also allow my kids to jump, if nobody is around. Let them have some fun!

I believe most of the signs are there to avoid annoying other folks sunbathing with excessive splashing. 

I do not consider myself reckless. 

 

Anyway, good the the family got funded. Shame on the Insurance. 

[JimmyJ]

15 hours ago, Compass Call said:

Apparently, there was a sign at the pool saying "No Diving". Probably for a very good reason.

The insurance company are bound to have found out about it and therefore refused to pay out.

Insurance companies are very good at finding out things that would mean that they could reuse a claim.

 

Pools have signs saying "No Diving" to protect themselves if something like this happens, and, because it can disturb other swimmers and/or people sitting in chaises poolside who get splashed, etc.

 

I am not a lawyer.

Imo, she cannot sue the hotel due to the sign, but that is not an out for the insurance company.

Or it's at least a moot point.

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, dreaming said:

How deep is a shallow pool? If they didnt specify that then they cant use it as an excuse.

Individual reasonable care to ascertain would be the yardstick unless one is a pedantic fool jumping in to any pool they come across.

Edited December 19, 2018 by SheungWan

[maddox41]

What insurance company was it?, who she was insured with?? 

[Gandtee]

18 hours ago, Kadilo said:

Must be bloody expensive ones 

Very Coy☺️

[NoshowJones]

19 hours ago, Kadilo said:

Great news.

Unfortunately the Insurance Company will carry on merrily to scam another day. 

Insurance companies are all the same, greedy capitalists who try every method they can not to pay out claims.

[Caine]

Spread all over social media Insure & Go are the bastards 

[Dick Crank]

19 hours ago, Kadilo said:

Great news.

Unfortunately the Insurance Company will carry on merrily to scam another day. 

Crazy to insure with some of these small unheard of companies

 

it could be just a couple blokes in their basement.

 

Claim comes in, oh we'll, don't pay and close up shop before they are sued. Open with a new name next week.

[Sheryl]

 
Pools have signs saying "No Diving" to protect themselves if something like this happens, and, because it can disturb other swimmers and/or people sitting in chaises poolside who get splashed, etc.
 
I am not a lawyer.
Imo, she cannot sue the hotel due to the sign, but that is not an out for the insurance company.
Or it's at least a moot point.

It was not at a hotel. It was at a bar and it is unclear if the pool was even really meant for swimming, sometimes pools at bars are more decorative than functiontal. She dove into it apparently late at night. So this was not a typical swimming accident.

There may or may not have been signs saying no diving.

The insurance company -- which is not a small or "fly by night" operation as some have stated (nor is it HCI) and which has generally favorable reviews believes the circumstances are such that it qualifies as an unusually reckless act. The Financial Ombudsman, which had final say, is investigating. This body is independent of the insurance company and will likely make a fair ruling after taking the full circumstances into account.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sumarianson]

I sympathise with her injury but not stupidity if thst is what it was.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Sumarianson

[bristolgeoff]

If I go to the LOS I ride a scooter.i make sure i have a international driving along with the UK one.check my policy of do,s and don,t,s.make sure i,am covered and what could cause a issue.being drunk on a scooter not covered jumping into rock pools in pai not covered.i will not be begging if I have a accident I,am covered.mit be harsh but life and travelling you must have head screwed on