Picture: Sanook

 

Sanook reported that the parents of a 21 year old woman - a fourth year law student at Rajaphat Buriram University in the north east of Thailand - turned to them after she was killed in a road traffic accident.

 

Ying, 21, was riding home on a motorcycle when a woman in a Mercedes Benz hit her from behind. 

 

Clutching her daughter's picture in tears her mother Somret, 56, said her daughter loved her and all their hopes and dreams were snuffed out in an instant. 

 

Her daughter had hoped to become a prosecutor. 

 

Her father Somchai said that their daughter died after being rushed to Krasang Hospital. The accident happened on May 1st.

 

The female driver of the car told them that she admitted to negligent driving and gave them 100,000 baht for funeral expenses saying that her First Class insurance would handle compensation payments.

 

Krasang police proceeded to take the matter to court where negligent driving was confirmed and after the intervention of the Office of Insurance Commission the insurance company involved was told to pay 2.5 million baht within seven days from September 15th. 

 

But they have received nothing and now the insurance company is saying they won't pay up because they consider that the Benz driver was not at fault of negligence. 

 

They have told the family to take them to court if they want the money.

 

The family are desperate facing mounting debts and have no idea how to proceed and have begged someone with legal knowledge to help them. 

 

Visa-compliant insurance plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m

 

 

-- © Copyright  ASEAN NOW 2021-11-18

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow ASEAN NOW on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

 

Get your business in front of millions of customers who read ASEAN NOW with an interest in Thailand every month - email [email protected] for more information

Yep...that's the insurance industry... the sales pitch: "We'll always be there for you"....the reality: "take us to court we have hundreds of lawyers"

If its as reported the driver admitted liability, the court ruled she was liable. Hard to see how the Insurance company has a leg to stand on. If they don't pay the regulator's  should with withdraw the right to offer insurance in the Thai market. Name and shame them - nobody is going to buy insurance from companies that don't pay.

That said the insurance companies have been so desparate to sign people up they've been ignoring fraud and risk profiles so perhaps this is the start of them clamping down. 

The insurance company needs naming - NOW !

3 minutes ago, JoePai said:

The insurance company needs naming - NOW !

Thats the only way to these dreadful insurance people to pay up...Name and Shame....

52 minutes ago, webfact said:

But they have received nothing and now the insurance company is saying they won't pay up because they consider that the Benz driver was not at fault of negligence. 

The insurance company is thinking because she drives a Mercedes Benz,

she cannot possibly be in the wrong, but running into the lady on motorbike

from behind , she is at fault, and even admits that, but insurance company

still won't pay, they need t be named and shamed , but of course that will never

happen , the law sometimes protects the wrong do'er 

regards worgeordie

Quote

Krasang police proceeded to take the matter to court where negligent driving was confirmed and after the intervention of the Office of Insurance Commission the insurance company involved was told to pay 2.5 million baht within seven days from September 15th. 

 

But they have received nothing and now the insurance company is saying they won't pay up because they consider that the Benz driver was not at fault of negligence. 

this paragraph is very vague.

 

if the defendant was sentenced to pay 2.5 million, then the court should seize assets until their sale nets the awarded sum.

 

but I have problems to understand the involvement of the insurance commission and "was told to pay".

3 hours ago, tgw said:

this paragraph is very vague.

 

if the defendant was sentenced to pay 2.5 million, then the court should seize assets until their sale nets the awarded sum.

 

but I have problems to understand the involvement of the insurance commission and "was told to pay".

It’s easy. The Court confirmed the Merc driver was negligent causing death.

The Court was hearing a neg driving charge and awarded an amount against the driver, not their insurance company.

The Merc driver is responsible for the awarded amount and whether the insurance coughs up is a matter between the driver and their insurance co.

17 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

It’s easy. The Court confirmed the Merc driver was negligent causing death.

The Court was hearing a neg driving charge and awarded an amount against the driver, not their insurance company.

The Merc driver is responsible for the awarded amount and whether the insurance coughs up is a matter between the driver and their insurance co.

that's what would have happened in a Western court...

 

4 hours ago, tonray said:

Yep...that's the insurance industry... the sales pitch: "We'll always be there for you"....the reality: "take us to court we have hundreds of lawyers"

Right, i mean we have a constant stream of articles about insurance not paying out. We get reminded about it every day that they only take premiums and then don't pay out. Millions of claims but none get paid out because they want to be taken to court.

 

I love it how people always seem to use this to bad mouth insurance, while in reality its only a small portion of the time that there are problems and quite often the insurance is in the right. 

 

This is not the case here as it has been taken to court already so this is one of those examples where it goes wrong. But in reality this a minority. I have not had claims refuted yet from health my health insurance, nor has my car insurance refused to pay 600k bt when the wife totaled the car.  

 

The reality is insurance will almost always pay out but there are cases that you get in trouble. Just like in most industries the majority goes well and incidents go to the newspaper helping to confirm the bias of of some people.

My Father took me to see his buddy from WW2 who ran an insurance company when I turned 14 and needed motorcycle insurance.

Was told "Do not lie to #1 the Gov't and #2 the Insurance company.

Sound advice

Without more info this case - for or against - is impossible to judge.

11 minutes ago, seedy said:

Was told "Do not lie to #1 the Gov't and #2 the Insurance company.

Sound advice

Without more info this case - for or against - is impossible to judge.

I lie to my government at every opportunity.

Same as they lie to me.

26 minutes ago, tgw said:

that's what would have happened in a Western court...

 

Yes. Due to the potential liability the insurance co should take over the legal defence on behalf of their client. 
while this appears to be a shut and closed case due to admission of guilt, by admitting fault, the driver may have created their own problem resulting in the Insurance Co not prepared to cover the liability.

16 minutes ago, seedy said:

Without more info this case - for or against - is impossible to judge.

and even with the facts, a complete minefield........................

Standard Insurance small print-never admit liability.

Standard Insurance procedure-NHBC- no hope of bringing claim!

28 minutes ago, seedy said:

My Father took me to see his buddy from WW2 who ran an insurance company when I turned 14 and needed motorcycle insurance.

Was told "Do not lie to #1 the Gov't and #2 the Insurance company.

Sound advice

Without more info this case - for or against - is impossible to judge.

True however seems that a court judged that it was negligent driving. So them refusing to pay makes no sense unless they go to a higher court, otherwise they need to pay. Its a bit strange but like you said without more details its hard to know more.

5 hours ago, tonray said:

Yep...that's the insurance industry... the sales pitch: "We'll always be there for you"....the reality: "take us to court we have hundreds of lawyers"

the fact of the matter is she doesn't have to take them to court. All she needs to do is advise the court where it was ruled that the insurance company had to pay, and the court should ( I emphasise should ) take all the necessary legal actions to enforce the insurance payment, and then prosecute the insurance company & it's directors from contempt of court.

I would have thought that if the insurance company fails to pay then the liability and legal argument lies between the insured person and the injured party.

 

They're still guilty of the crime so sue the driver of the car, not the insurance company.

 

The driver of the car has a problem with their insurance company, not the family of the deceased.

Now all they need to do is enforce the debt. It's a shame that this fully insured person doesn't receive the cover they paid for but that's life, they will have to pay the 2.5 million baht themselves.

 

The insurance companies opinion is irrelevant, maybe the driver sues them to get their money back.

 

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Krasang police proceeded to take the matter to court where negligent driving was confirmed and after the intervention of the Office of Insurance Commission the insurance company involved was told to pay 2.5 million baht within seven days from September 15th. 

 

But they have received nothing and now the insurance company is saying they won't pay up because they consider that the Benz driver was not at fault of negligence. 

 

They have told the family to take them to court if they want the money.

Back to court then and the insurance company should be hung out to dry.

How about criminal charges for death due to dangerous driving?

The insurance company knows that the family cannot afford up front legal fees to go into a court battle thus they have the upper hand I would guess that as soon as a court case is proposed they will capitulate and offer to pay the money but not the legal fees the family have paid to bring it to court.

2 hours ago, Reigntax said:

The Merc driver is responsible for the awarded amount and whether the insurance coughs up is a matter between the driver and their insurance co.

Absolutely correct and if what's been reported is correct, the parents should have no problem with obtaining a successful verdict against the driver for non-payment.  I'm pretty sure that a decent lawyer will advise them to increase the amount claimed due to the additional distress caused by the insured not paying what the court ordered.

 

Faced with that, the insurance company will no doubt try to do a u-turn and offer the amount originally ordered - if it was me, I would tell them where they can stick their offer and continue through to court.

7 hours ago, webfact said:

The family are desperate facing mounting debts

It's often only about getting the money, not about justice, and this appears to be another example. Tragic that they lost their daughter, but now they are trying to milk the situation for the wrong reasons - that they are in debt. Perhaps if the daughter was alive they'd be hounding her for money instead.

Having said that, the court has made a ruling and assets should be seized to get the sum awarded. Taking the Mercedes would be a good place to start.

2 hours ago, tgw said:

that's what would have happened in a Western court...

Actually, the Thai courts work in the same way in such matters.

 

In 2011 I was injured in an accident with a taxi in Bangkok. The taxi driver was clearly responsible for the accident but UNBELIEVABLY only had 3rd class insurance (the police told me there was no obligation on him to have better cover!).  The maximum amount his insurers covered was 100,000 baht - that didn't even cover my hospital bill, let alone anything else.

 

My lawyers told me not to worry, we would take the driver to court and if he had no money, floowing a successful verdict, the court would order the sale of any property that he, or bizarrely, his family owned in order to cover my claim.

 

As it happened, this guy was just an ordinary man who shared the taxi via shifts with 2 other drivers. He worked away from home in Bangkok in order to support his family (I checked this out).  I decided not to pursue any further claims and settled for the 100,000 as I didn't want to be responsible for either the driver or his family losing their home. In my opinion the Thai government were as much to blame as the driver was for allowing a taxi to operate with 3rd class insurance.

3 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

Tragic that they lost their daughter, but now they are trying to milk the situation for the wrong reasons - that they are in debt.

They possibly are in debt - debts through paying their daughter though university!!! What do you know of their position that gives you the right to say they are 'milking the situation'?

 

In addition, there is little other recompense that anyone can seek in such circumstances - should the Mercedes drives get off scott free and continue her clearly privileged life whilst they grieve?

6 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

They possibly are in debt - debts through paying their daughter though university!!! What do you know of their position that gives you the right to say they are 'milking the situation'?

 

In addition, there is little other recompense that anyone can seek in such circumstances - should the Mercedes drives get off scott free and continue her clearly privileged life whilst they grieve?

You forgot to include in my quote that I said they should seize assets to get the money that the court awarded. Naughty. Are you a tabloid writer, by chance, only telling half a story to suit your own agenda?

8 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

You forgot to include in my quote that I said they should seize assets to get the money that the court awarded. Naughty. Are you a tabloid writer, by chance, only telling half a story to suit your own agenda?

You did indeed mention seizing assets but I believe your statement that they were 'milking the situation' was out of order.

 

What possible agenda could I have? I am merely someone reading the story and comments thereof - I didn't feel your comment could go unchallenged.

2 hours ago, TigerandDog said:

the fact of the matter is she doesn't have to take them to court. All she needs to do is advise the court where it was ruled that the insurance company had to pay, and the court should ( I emphasise should ) take all the necessary legal actions to enforce the insurance payment, and then prosecute the insurance company & it's directors from contempt of court.

The court didn’t make an award against the insurance company.

it made an award against the Merc driver.

Courts don’t take legal action. They judge on merit, law and facts the action taken by one party against another 

7 hours ago, turgid said:

If its as reported the driver admitted liability, the court ruled she was liable. Hard to see how the Insurance company has a leg to stand on. If they don't pay the regulator's  should with withdraw the right to offer insurance in the Thai market. Name and shame them - nobody is going to buy insurance from companies that don't pay.

That said the insurance companies have been so desparate to sign people up they've been ignoring fraud and risk profiles so perhaps this is the start of them clamping down. 

This is why I suggest those of test&go visitors avoid any Thai insurance - its not heavily advertise but your own travel insurance from your country of origin is perfectly fine if it covers covid - most do since mid year - and has at least 50k usd (any will do), Thai covid insurance is extremely overpriced for the risk and benefits and there seems no guarantee they will honor their promises, these companies are a law to themselves and even the Thai ombudsman is clearly powerless.

 

Had to laugh that thaivisa added an insurance advert to the bottom of this news item

1 hour ago, asiam110 said:

This is why I suggest those of test&go visitors avoid any Thai insurance - its not heavily advertise but your own travel insurance from your country of origin is perfectly fine if it covers covid - most do since mid year - and has at least 50k usd (any will do), Thai covid insurance is extremely overpriced for the risk and benefits and there seems no guarantee they will honor their promises, these companies are a law to themselves and even the Thai ombudsman is clearly powerless.

 

Had to laugh that thaivisa added an insurance advert to the bottom of this news item

Yes, its following my experiences with Thai insurance companies that I decided on insurance from my home country for my future visits.