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

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

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

I have had similar issues...  and found a clause which stated... “not covered for dangerous activities’... 

 

It took me two months to get in writing that I was covered for

- Recreational diving (under certification)

- Skiing on piste (or Off piste with an instructor)

- Motorcling (when licensed)

- Passenger on a Motorcycle taxi

- Riding a bicycle 

 

The insurance seemed extremely reluctant to get pushed into a corner about specifics. 

Particularly the ‘skiing cover’... and argued they’d decided the level of cover when they evaluate the extent of injury to decide if I was skiing dangerously or not !!!....  

 

IMO - while Liverpool Lou will ALWAYS defend the insurance company, I have the very opposite opinion and believe they hide behind ambiguity and imprecise or advanced terminology to give themselves potential wiggle room. 

 

I was rejected a medical claim through such ambiguity (to the tune of 130,000 baht - April Int’l).... since changed insurance companies.

 

 

 

[Sheryl]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

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. 

 

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.

 

 

Would not remotely occur to the doctors and other staff who initially treated him at the scene and in the ER.

 

Might in a Westrrn country (medicolegal issues as well as insurance) but would not in Thailand.

 

Nor would they be likely to remember now even if someone could track them fown.

 

The only way to "prove" this would be CCTV footage and very difficult for  family to get hold of it. (Helmet aside would show how the accident occurred.  There may be another diver at fault.).

 

Unfortunately probing these angles would take time and money. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

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. 

The family also has a GoFund me going, and saying the poor kid is being cheated by a greedy insurance company goes a long way to garner sympathy. 

 

If it were my son and an insurance company was cheating him, I would name the company and post a copy of the police. 

 

Insurance companies cheating people makes for good copy, any because the paper does not make much of it seems suspect. 

[proton]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

The family also has a GoFund me going, and saying the poor kid is being cheated by a greedy insurance company goes a long way to garner sympathy. 

 

If it were my son and an insurance company was cheating him, I would name the company and post a copy of the police. 

 

Insurance companies cheating people makes for good copy, any because the paper does not make much of it seems suspect. 

No evidence the insurance company are cheating him, quite a bit to show he was probably acting outside the cover he bought. Insurance companies are not charities for reckless holiday makers.  

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

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

Find out if the actual reason for denial of the first. 

 

The Media are not known for their accuracy, particularly if imparting information passed onto them by highlight emotional relatives attempting to garner as much sympathy as possible for their go-fund-me page... 

 

 

ONE other important facet of this story (which may have been covered, I haven't read all 9 pages). 

 

What / who caused the accident ? hit and run ?.... any other parties involved ?

IF another driver was at fault, should their insurance not cover ALL medical costs ?

AND.. IF they are not insured, shouldn’t the Thai government step in and cover costs because it is their failing which led to the non-insurance of said third party (if one was involved). 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

Just now, proton said:

quite a bit to show he was probably acting outside the cover he bought

Where ?????  Exactly where is there ‘quite a bit of evidence’ to show he was acting outside the cover he bought ?

 

Where ? quote, link ??  Any REAL information, not here say on this forum ?

[Yellowtail]

34 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Find out if the actual reason for denial of the first. 

Why? I disputed every claim that was ever denied, and the claims were almost always approved the second time through. 

 

There is no reason for the family to not fight, it costs nothing to dispute the claim. Everything to gain, nothing to lose. 

 

If you don't ask, the answer's no.

[Ralf001]

44 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

AND.. IF they are not insured, shouldn’t the Thai government step in and cover costs because it is their failing which led to the non-insurance of said third party (if one was involved). 

 

 

Why should the government pay the bills of a <deleted> <deleted> that does not pay his compulsory third party insurance ? Which by the way covers exactly <deleted> all in the grand scheme of this family begging for 200k USD for a glorified airplane ticket.

[Yellowtail]

As "Por Ror Bor" insurance is required on all vehicles, would this not cover the medical, at least up to the maximum? 

[Confuscious]

1 hour ago, transam said:

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.......????

Europ Assistance is an insurance paid by the health care for European citizens on holiday.

That's the part of the involvement of Europe in this.

"Chose" is a typo and should be "Chose".

But as most of you are out of Junior school, i guess you knew this already.

[Confuscious]

2 hours ago, transam said:

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.......????

https://www.europ-assistance.com/

[Yellowtail]

19 minutes ago, Confuscious said:

"Chose" is a typo and should be "Chose".

What's the difference? 

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, Confuscious said:

4 hours 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?

I know, so what?  This is a case of a British bloke in Thailand trying to get out of Thailand, the UK leaving the EU and Europ Assistance is completely irrelevant.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, brianthainess said:

4 hours 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.

I haven't disputed that!   I have disputed that the definitions are nothing to do with this thread.

 

"end of".

What's that supposed to mean?

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, brianburi said:

4 hours 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

Really?  What was it in that comment of mine that was not factual, then?  Specifically.

 

Funny how expressing different thoughts and observations to most is seen as "antagonistic" by those who don't have a reasoned response to my comments, eh?

[Ralf001]

53 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As "Por Ror Bor" insurance is required on all vehicles, would this not cover the medical, at least up to the maximum? 

por ror bor covers third party.

If this lad is third party then yes, he would be covered up to Bt.80,000.....assuming the at fault driver was still on scene and provided his details to police.

[transam]

36 minutes ago, Confuscious said:

https://www.europ-assistance.com/

So what has that got to do with this British bloke in Thailand and Brexit ...?

[paulikens]

15 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How much did you donate? 

@Yellowtail Not about how much i donated. its about people going out their way just to come on here to say it's his own fault. WTF 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Ralf001 said:

por ror bor covers third party.

If this lad is third party then yes, he would be covered up to Bt.80,000.....assuming the at fault driver was still on scene and provided his details to police.

I think it covers the driver(s) as well: 

 

"What is Compulsory Car Insurance or ‘Por Ror Bor’?
A government required insurance for all motor vehicles as stipulated in Motor Victims Protection Act B.E. 1992 which came into effect on 5 April 1993, requires all cars, motorcycles and other vehicles that are registered with the Department of Land Transport. Drivers of such vehicles must purchase Compulsory Motor Insurance or as it is known locally ‘Por Ror Bor’, in order to provide basic insurance coverage for anyone affected by road accidents, whether they are drivers, passengers or pedestrians."

 

But the limits are low, certainly not enough to cover someone in the hospital for two weeks with multiple brain surgeries. 

 

Comprehensive Motorcycle Insurance Online (roojai.com)

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, paulikens said:

@Yellowtail Not about how much i donated. its about people going out their way just to come on here to say it's his own fault. WTF 

So just here to point out how morally superior you are to everyone else that hasn't donated anything? 

 

Who's fault is it? 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Yellowtail

[kennw]

On 4/4/2023 at 12:48 PM, GroveHillWanderer said:

Most areas are fairly quiet in the middle of the night, though.

The LAW requires bike riders to wear helmets at ALL times, for very good reasons as this case demonstrates.

[IvorBiggun2]

Some people have  misquoted. Por Ror Bor 3rd party insurance only covers the owner of the vehicle.

[paulikens]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

So just here to point out how morally superior you are to everyone else that hasn't donated anything? 

 

Who's fault is it? 

 

@Yellowtail I think I'm morally superior because i think its a bit out of order to be having a go at a young bloke who could have lost his life and his family are worried sick and i have a bit of empathy.  Jog on ya melt

[Yellowtail]

46 minutes ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

Some people have  misquoted. Por Ror Bor 3rd party insurance only covers the owner of the vehicle.

No. The owner of the vehicle is compelled to buy it, but everyone in the accident is covered. 

[IvorBiggun2]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

No. The owner of the vehicle is compelled to buy it, but everyone in the accident is covered. 

I'm sure someone will be along soon to put things right.

[Yellowtail]

41 minutes ago, paulikens said:

@Yellowtail I think I'm morally superior because i think its a bit out of order to be having a go at a young bloke who could have lost his life and his family are worried sick and i have a bit of empathy.  Jog on ya melt

I don't doubt you "think" you're morally superior about any number of things the cost you nothing but a little tired chin-music. 

 

Who is having a go at him? You think people that think he should have been wearing a helmet have no empathy? Jog on ya'own melt hoser. 

[IvorBiggun2]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No. The owner of the vehicle is compelled to buy it, but everyone in the accident is covered. 

https://www.rvp.co.th/underwritingQA_en.php

[Yellowtail]

13 minutes ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

https://www.rvp.co.th/underwritingQA_en.php

Exactly:

 

"What is Compulsory Car Insurance or ‘Por Ror Bor’?
A government required insurance for all motor vehicles as stipulated in Motor Victims Protection Act B.E. 1992 which came into effect on 5 April 1993, requires all cars, motorcycles and other vehicles that are registered with the Department of Land Transport. Drivers of such vehicles must purchase Compulsory Motor Insurance or as it is known locally ‘Por Ror Bor’, in order to provide basic insurance coverage for anyone affected by road accidents, whether they are drivers, passengers or pedestrians."

[richard_smith237]

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Find out if the actual reason for denial of the first. 

Why? I disputed every claim that was ever denied, and the claims were almost always approved the second time through. 

 

There is no reason for the family to not fight, it costs nothing to dispute the claim. Everything to gain, nothing to lose. 

 

If you don't ask, the answer's no.

Fair point…. I was approaching the comment from the angle of ‘plausible claim’… i.e. if the reason for denial was a ‘no motorcycles clause’ or a ‘no motorcycles without a valid licence clause’ etc…  many other perfectly understandable and readily provable reasons…

 

But, if the reason is something contestable and difficult to prove one way or another, then of course… dispute the rejected claim. But that’s difficult when a life is on on the line and the insurance company has all the time in the world.

 

Really though, we’re discussing a story outrageously lacking in facts & we’re stuck debating the hypothetical…  some interesting hypotheticals at that….   The one for me which still stands out is the helmet debate… to be covered by insurance does the helmet have to be a DOT rated helmet, or is a big c plastic lid sufficient if it meets Thai law?

 

 

 

 

 

[Ralf001]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The one for me which still stands out is the helmet debate… to be covered by insurance does the helmet have to be a DOT rated helmet, or is a big c plastic lid sufficient if it meets Thai law?

If the Helmet is Thai sourced/made then it should meet the Thai Industrial Standard.

https://thaiauto.or.th

6

Protective helmets for motorcycle users

TIS.369-2557(2014)