Brit in intensive care after Thailand moped crash as family can't afford to get him home

[brianthainess]

27 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Doesn't matter.

It does when a tourist hires a "Moped" thinking they are covered by there insurance, when in fact they hired a 125 motorbike. they are NOT MOPEDS !

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

It does when a tourist hires a "Moped" thinking they are covered by there insurance, when in fact they hired a 125 motorbike. they are NOT MOPEDS !

Were there pedals on it? If not, what would lead the tourist to believe it was a moped? 

[brianthainess]

4 hours ago, Venom said:

Agreed insurance should be included in the rental price like in most of the civilized world. Obviously, if your don't rent a motorcycle you should not be required to buy motorcycle insurance. 

Not much good if you don't wear a helmet or have a M/C license. There should be a lot heavier fines imposed to people renting out M/C to people without a license. 

[brianthainess]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Were there pedals on it? If not, what would lead the tourist to believe it was a moped? 

Because the media call them that, a step through bike gets misconstrued as a moped which they are not.

[Dan O]

16 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, I can read, I can also read the implication in your comment which was suggesting that there are exclusions that are not made clear to policy holders and are then used to deny claims.

 

If I misinterpreted your comment, my apologies.

The only implication behind what I wrote is their are always exclusions to Every insurance policy. I never said they were hidden. Hopefully people read them (most do not) and understand them but in the end the insurance companies hold the decision making process based on a variety of factors which are not spelled out and are situation specific. So you could be in the right from your view and the insurance company can claim otherwise. Then it turns to a pissing match on collecting which usually isn't a speedy process by any means 

[mommysboy]

Oh well, best not to be too critical- one way or another we're all in the firing line in Thailand.  

[Liverpool Lou]

16 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

46 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Doesn't matter.

It does when a tourist hires a "Moped" thinking they are covered by there insurance, when in fact they hired a 125 motorbike. they are NOT MOPEDS !

For the purposes of this thread it does not matter.  But, in the context of your point, all the tourist would have to do was to check the cover that his policy provides first, before renting a bike, moped or whatever.   How the UK rag, the Daily Mirror, describes the bike in the story that they pay for is irrelevant!. 

[Confuscious]

22 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

Who's <deleted> are these massive repatriation costs pulled from ?

When the UK was still in EU, British holiday makers could go on holiday after taking an insurance with "Europ Assistance" (an insurance of the health care providers) which would repatriate him always.

But the UK chosed to leave the EU ...and go for "Go Fund Me".......

[brianthainess]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

For the purposes of this thread it does not matter.  But, in the context of your point, all the tourist would have to do was to check the cover that his policy provides first, before renting a bike, moped or whatever.   How a news report describes the bike is irrelevant!. 

IYO as always nitpicker Lou.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 minutes ago, Confuscious said:

When the UK was still in EU, British holiday makers could go on holiday after taking an insurance with "Europ Assistance" (an insurance of the health care providers) which would repatriate him always.

But the UK chosed to leave the EU ...and go for "Go Fund Me".......

So what?   This is Thailand.

[Liverpool Lou]

5 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

For the purposes of this thread it does not matter.  But, in the context of your point, all the tourist would have to do was to check the cover that his policy provides first, before renting a bike, moped or whatever.   How a news report describes the bike is irrelevant!. 

IYO as always nitpicker Lou.

No, that's not my opinion, I'm separating fact from opinion and that is not "nitpicking", everything in my comment is factual.

[Muzzique]

NO helmet. Same as drink driving. Illegal. now the begging bowl comes out.

 

Why take out insurance then flout the law and ask others to pay for idiotic behavior?

 

You made the bed, now sleep in it... 

[brianburi]

29 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, that's not my opinion, I'm separating fact from opinion and that is not "nitpicking", everything in my comment is factual.

Factual? Well that's your opinion Laughing Lou. Antagonist nonsense and picking posters up for minor grammar points most of the time......

[brianthainess]

41 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, that's not my opinion, I'm separating fact from opinion and that is not "nitpicking", everything in my comment is factual.

FACT a M/C is NOT a Moped. end of.

[transam]

A moped =  Motor wiv Pedals....

[billd766]

7 minutes ago, transam said:

A moped =  Motor wiv Pedals....

I used to have one in the UK in 1960. It cost 12s 6d per year to insure in the UK back then.

 

 

[mommysboy]

54 minutes ago, Muzzique said:

NO helmet. Same as drink driving. Illegal. now the begging bowl comes out.

 

Why take out insurance then flout the law and ask others to pay for idiotic behavior?

 

You made the bed, now sleep in it... 

'You made the bed, now sleep in it... '

 

Well he's certainly doing just that!!! 

 

By the way... good luck with the empathy transplant.

[Sheryl]

7 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

I assume a helmet was found and recovered from the crash site.

 

No reason to assume this, In fact, given statements that it cannot be proved one way or the other if helmet was, have to assume it was not. Or, if it was, was discarded (or, if still usable,  pinched).

 

Even if helmet was still on his head, rescue workers would have removed it to examine the wound etc and would not have been likely to bring it with him to the hospital.

 

And certainly no one would go looking for one if it had bounced off.

[Ralf001]

4 hours ago, Venom said:

Agreed insurance should be included in the rental price like in most of the civilized world. Obviously, if your don't rent a motorcycle you should not be required to buy motorcycle insurance. 

The scooter/bike/moped will have insurance assuming the road tax is paid.

 

[Ralf001]

5 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

No reason to assume this, In fact, given statements that it cannot be proved one way or the other if helmet was, have to assume it was not. Or, if it was, was discarded (or, if still usable,  pinched).

 

Even if helmet was still on his head, rescue workers would have removed it to examine the wound etc and would not have been likely to bring it with him to the hospital.

 

And certainly no one would go looking for one if it had bounced off.

So the insurance company is correct then in denying the claim.

[richard_smith237]

12 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

No reason to assume this, In fact, given statements that it cannot be proved one way or the other if helmet was, have to assume it was not. Or, if it was, was discarded (or, if still usable,  pinched).

 

Even if helmet was still on his head, rescue workers would have removed it to examine the wound etc and would not have been likely to bring it with him to the hospital.

 

And certainly no one would go looking for one if it had bounced off.

It is this part of the story which interests me. 

 

I may be mistaken, but the family are quoted as saying [The tourist's family are now trying to raise £200,000 as it has not been possible to prove whether the man was wearing a helmet or not]

 

This implies to me that the insurance company would cover the costs IF it could be proven that a helmet was being worn. 

Is there no onus on the insurance company to prove that a helmet was not being worn ???

 

i.e. IF I am involved in a car accident and am taken to hospital - could my insurance argue I was not wearing a seatbelt and refuse me cover ?.... IF I have a motorcycle accident, could my insurance accuse me of not wearing a helmet and refuse cover ???

 

 

What proof does the insurance company have that the injured party was not wearing a helmet (I agree, he probably wasn’t - but surely they’d need to be able to prove that and the onus should be on the insurance company).

[richard_smith237]

12 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

So the insurance company is correct then in denying the claim.

IS it ????.... IF the only reason the insurance company is denying the claim is that they are ‘levying the accusation’ that the injured party was not wearing a helmet, surely they need proof ???

 

OR... is there another reason they are not paying out and this ‘helmet / no helmet’ debate is something which has arisen from a misunderstanding by one of the family who were interviewed by the media or even mis-reporting. 

 

 

[Confuscious]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

So what?   This is Thailand.

They guy is a BRITISH citizen and the insurance company who refuses to pay for a repatriation is a BRITISH insurance company.
Nothing to do with THAILAND.
Sucks that the UK chise to leave the EU?

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

It is this part of the story which interests me. 

 

I may be mistaken, but the family are quoted as saying [The tourist's family are now trying to raise £200,000 as it has not been possible to prove whether the man was wearing a helmet or not]

 

This implies to me that the insurance company would cover the costs IF it could be proven that a helmet was being worn. 

Is there no onus on the insurance company to prove that a helmet was not being worn ???

 

i.e. IF I am involved in a car accident and am taken to hospital - could my insurance argue I was not wearing a seatbelt and refuse me cover ?.... IF I have a motorcycle accident, could my insurance accuse me of not wearing a helmet and refuse cover ???

 

 

What proof does the insurance company have that the injured party was not wearing a helmet (I agree, he probably wasn’t - but surely they’d need to be able to prove that and the onus should be on the insurance company).

As there we (apparently) have no statement from the insurance company, do not have any idea what their position is. 

 

Nor do we know if the poor kid was even insured. All we know is what the relatives claim. 

[Mike Teavee]

21 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

IS it ????.... IF the only reason the insurance company is denying the claim is that they are ‘levying the accusation’ that the injured party was not wearing a helmet, surely they need proof ???

 

OR... is there another reason they are not paying out and this ‘helmet / no helmet’ debate is something which has arisen from a misunderstanding by one of the family who were interviewed by the media or even mis-reporting. 

 

 

Surely the people who attended the scene of the accident or the attending DRs can give an opinion as to whether he was wearing a helmet or not. 
 

Of course it could have come off at the moment of impact with the net result being the same as if he wasn’t wearing a helmet but the insurance company could argue wearing a helmet “Improperly” is the same as not wearing a helmet at all on the basis the claim is likely to be higher as a result. 
 

Other reasons for denying the claim could be no motorcycle license, no IDP or the bike was 125+ & required separate motorcycle insurance. 
 

 

[transam]

3 minutes ago, Confuscious said:

They guy is a BRITISH citizen and the insurance company who refuses to pay for a repatriation is a BRITISH insurance company.
Nothing to do with THAILAND.
Sucks that the UK chise to leave the EU?

Really................So what has the EU got to do with this thread...?

Why should a British insurance company pay anyone that does not understand conditions of a policy....?  ????

You do not have to use capital letters, most of us are out of junior school..........I don't know what "chise" is either.......????

[Sheryl]

46 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

So the insurance company is correct then in denying the claim.

Only if you take the position that the use of  helmet has to be proven. I would think the opposite. 

 

If one takes the position that the insurer would need to prove no helmet use then they are in the wrong since it appears no such proof exists. 

[GinBoy2]

This is more of a question and idle musing.

 

But is it normal to have language in travel policy that defines this scenario, in particular the helmet thing.

 

For <deleted>z n giggles I did a quote from Allianz in the US for a fictitious trip.

 

I read through all the T&C's and the closest I could come for an exclusion was 'activities against local regulations'

 

Now I know thats a pretty broad exclusion, but thats a hard thing to prove in this case, I would have thought

[richard_smith237]

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As there we (apparently) have no statement from the insurance company, do not have any idea what their position is. 

 

Nor do we know if the poor kid was even insured. All we know is what the relatives claim. 

Agree... we only have the opening article and very little else to go on. 

 

BUT... it would appear that the relatives are under the impression (or they gave the media the impression) that they have to prove their injured relative was wearing a helmet before they’d reverse a decision regarding cover. 

 

24 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

Surely the people who attended the scene of the accident or the attending DRs can give an opinion as to whether he was wearing a helmet or not. 
 

Of course it could have come off at the moment of impact with the net result being the same as if he wasn’t wearing a helmet but the insurance company could argue wearing a helmet “Improperly” is the same as not wearing a helmet at all on the basis the claim is likely to be higher as a result. 
 

Other reasons for denying the claim could be no motorcycle license, no IDP or the bike was 125+ & required separate motorcycle insurance. 

This is perhaps where the clumsy reporting comes into it... Or rather, we are so familiar with shoddy, clumsy reporting that often raises more questions than answered that we simply have no idea and are simply left completely in the dark, which is a shame... because it really would be good information for all of us IF insurances are wiggling out of payouts over something they can’t prove. 

 

 

Thus: What proof does the insurance company have that the injured party was either not wearing an helmet or not wearing one properly ???... And as this is such an important piece of information why was not reported upon ????   two possible answers here IMO: 

1) The helmet issue is a non-issue - this is not why insurance was denied (insurance was denied for another reason, i.e. no motorcycles clause in the insurance).

2) OR...as you mentioned, no licence etc 

 

So... Perhaps the whole ‘helmet debate’ is simply moot (from an insurance perspective). 

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Only if you take the position that the use of  helmet has to be proven. I would think the opposite. 

Were that the case, because the insurance company really has no way of proving whether anyone was or was not wearing a helmet, the clause would be pointless. 

 

7 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

If one takes the position that the insurer would need to prove no helmet use then they are in the wrong since it appears no such proof exists. 

We don't know, but the insurance company (if there is one) might know. 

 

Given the need to wear a helmet to collect on a claim is well known, I would think it would be in everyone's (including the doctor's) interest to show the kid was wearing a helmet. 

 

I agree that the family should absolutely fight the insurance company's decision.