British student’s harrowing balcony plunge leaves him fighting for life in a Thailand hospital

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, CecilM said:

Yeah, consider me baffled. I’ve never seen a butt-hight railing.

(Leading me to another thought: is this a cheaply-built thing in Pattaya? Might explain my lack of knowledge as I never go there.)

It's a myth. Are their low railings? Probably. Is it common? No. 

[richard_smith237]

11 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Why?   Assuming that the insurer's decision was justified (and there is no reason to suspect that it wasn't justified in this case, or any others recently) how could naming a company that denied a claim for a valid reason possibly be of benefit to anyone?     There are no insurers that make exceptions to the excessive consumption of alcohol conditions, they all have the same clauses in their policies, so, if your intent by naming the company would be to dissuade people from using that company based solely on what has been reported in this case, in favour of other insurers, that would be a complete waste of everyone's time.

It wouldn't be a waste of my time though.... I'd want to overlook any insurance which refuses to pay for medical care based on such blanket exclusions. The wording in 'some' policies allows for 'reasonable' amounts [of alcohol] while others just exclude cover if under the influence at all.

 

There is no booze clause in my Medical insurance so I'm not too worried about that (not that I'm aware of). However, this is not 'travel insurance' which is a different beast. 

 

When taking out 'travel insurance' with World Nomads (to cover the family for winter sports) I was initially unaware of a booze clause in that - the policy is 117 pages long and the mention of alcohol is on page 88 !!!

 

This is their wording.

[Alcohol misuse; you drinking too much alcohol where it is reasonable in the circumstances to expect that such consumption could result in an impairment to your health, impairment of your faculties and/or seriously affect your judgment or exacerbates another medical condition. We do not expect you to avoid drinking alcohol on your trip but we will not cover any claims arising because you have drunk so much alcohol that your judgement is seriously affected and you need to make a claim as a result.]

 

Slip over on ice on the way back from a restaurant and theoretically, if the insurance company think I've had too many Sakés with dinner I'm no longer covered by the Travel Insurance - I would expect this company to be reasonable, however - there is still wiggle-room.

 

When initially taking out such insurance I was unaware of this at the time and only recently found just the mention of alcohol their 117 page policy document - I had to run a specific 'word search' looking for the word alcohol in the full policy PDF to find this out and we only get the full policy wording after taking out cover. 

 

This is also why the info in threads such as this is useful. 

 

Some companies are better and more transparent than others, so there is the additional interest in such examples regarding how transparent the insurer is. 

 

In discussing this topic, I'd be interested to learn how transparent this insurer (subject of the Op) is with their policy wording or if the exclusions seem reasonable.

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

11 hours ago, kwilco said:

and if the balcony was. the right height, he wouldn't have fallen off it. - 

Does it get to the point where a travel insurer adds 'balcony height' to the exclusions of a policy ?

i.e. exclusion for balcony falls where the balcony is less than 1.1m in height or made of xxx materials etc... 

 

Of course, not yet.... BUT...  could the insure blame the injured party for 'risky behaviour' when entering out onto a balcony that is of 'sub-standard' height.... 

 

Clearly such exclusions do not yet exist, but how long before they do ???? 

 

 

[wealthychef]

32 minutes ago, CecilM said:

Yeah, consider me baffled. I’ve never seen a butt-hight railing.

(Leading me to another thought: is this a cheaply-built thing in Pattaya? Might explain my lack of knowledge as I never go there.)

It was in Pattaya.  Maybe it's more like an everywhere but Bangkok thing?  I think Chiang Mai also has this.  Sometimes things built for Thais have lower rails and smaller doorways.  

[wealthychef]

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I would not say I've never seen a low railing here, but I certainly have not seen many. Can you provide an example of a hotel or whatnot where you've seen these low railings? 

Nope, but they exist.  Railings that come up to about butt-high.  They are dangerous.  

[Yellowtail]

16 minutes ago, wealthychef said:

Nope, but they exist.  Railings that come up to about butt-high.  They are dangerous.  

That's what I thought, never any specific examples.

 

So, they were "common", they "exist". 

 

I don't doubt they exist. 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Yellowtail

[CecilM]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

It's a myth. Are their low railings? Probably. Is it common? No. 

Thank you. Exactly what I think too. 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

others just exclude cover if under the influence at all.

Really?  Name one travel insurance provider that excludes cover when any amount of alcohol, regardless of how little, has been consumed.

[CecilM]

1 hour ago, wealthychef said:

It was in Pattaya.  Maybe it's more like an everywhere but Bangkok thing?  I think Chiang Mai also has this.  Sometimes things built for Thais have lower rails and smaller doorways.  

The smaller doors I have only (painfully) encountered at bathrooms. Not yet elsewhere. Since this “low railing” is a regularly coming thread I have been thinking about it for a while. No, I can’t remember any such things from CM or CR. Of course I am in now way discrediting others’ experiences, I am just sharing mine. 

[ThaiFelix]

On 7/5/2023 at 5:47 PM, snoop1130 said:

Although Jack had travel insurance, the family claims that the insurance company is refusing to cover the costs associated with his treatment.

Dont you just love insurance companies!!

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, CecilM said:

The smaller doors I have only (painfully) encountered at bathrooms. Not yet elsewhere. Since this “low railing” is a regularly coming thread I have been thinking about it for a while. No, I can’t remember any such things from CM or CR. Of course I am in now way discrediting others’ experiences, I am just sharing mine. 

Anyone arguing there are too many things to bang your head one here has my full support, 

[CecilM]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Anyone arguing there are too many things to bang your head one here has my full support, 

Or poke your eyes (no double entendres here), I mean all the awnings, umbrellas, overhangs along the streets and markets. ????

[KhunLA]

2 hours ago, wealthychef said:

I've only been here about 5 years and I've seen plenty of dangerous railings.  They come right up to your butt, so that you just will flop over the railing if pushed. 

????????????

[khunPer]

23 hours ago, kwilco said:

have you measured your balcony?

Yes, I designed all my balconies myself...

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, khunPer said:

Yes, I designed all my balconies myself...

Are you vegan? 

[Sticky Rice Balls]

So if he comes out of it we will finally have someone to explain HOW they fell off a balcony in LOS?????....

[Aussie999]

6 hours ago, KhunLA said:

You did reply to me ... and yes, been in TH a long time, relative, and yet to see or been on a balcony I'd be able to fall over, unless as Sheryl stated, doing something really stupid.

 

Which ins co. have a escape clause for that also.

 

You can't fix stupid.   Millions of tourist every year, don't fall off balconies ... wonder why that is ?

"You did reply to me" replying to you does NOT make the article about you...lol
I agree "millions" do not fall over the balcony, but everyone here knows many do, it's well documented, and well know the balcony rails are not set to any standard, you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself... again, this is NOT about you, or how many fall over the balconies, my original comment was about ALL the "guessing." Please stick to the article. You seem to have a personal issue, best you deal with it.... I will not make any more comment... end od discussion.

[KhunLA]

9 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

"You did reply to me" replying to you does NOT make the article about you...lol
I agree "millions" do not fall over the balcony, but everyone here knows many do, it's well documented, and well know the balcony rails are not set to any standard, you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself... again, this is NOT about you, or how many fall over the balconies, my original comment was about ALL the "guessing." Please stick to the article. You seem to have a personal issue, best you deal with it.... I will not make any more comment... end od discussion.

It's not well documented, as we only read about the ones, insurance doesn't/won't cover.  

 

And there is a standard, 900mm, I already posted.  Google is your friend.

 

If sticking to the article, nobody knows, why denied, as wasn't mentioned.   But realistically, going over the balcony can only really be denied for, substances in system, which they would have access to info for, or risky behavior; sitting edge for selfie, would be anyone's best guess.

 

What else could they possibly deny it for ?

 

But blaming the balcony, is as unlikely a reason anyone can think of.

 

Have a nice day

Edited July 7, 2023 by KhunLA

[Pink Mist]

Baiting troll post has been removed 

[The Fugitive]

8 hours ago, Sheryl said:

A common method is to sit on top of the railing and attempt to take a selfie. 

Very good point. If someone uses a 'selfie stick' they only have the use of one arm to steady themselves. If taking a selfie 'freehand' they hold their mobile with one hand and press the button with the other. If you were seen/video recorded doing that and toppling over backwards, would that constitute reckless behaviour thus voiding any accident cover?  

[kwilco]

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Does it get to the point where a travel insurer adds 'balcony height' to the exclusions of a policy ?

i.e. exclusion for balcony falls where the balcony is less than 1.1m in height or made of xxx materials etc... 

 

Of course, not yet.... BUT...  could the insure blame the injured party for 'risky behaviour' when entering out onto a balcony that is of 'sub-standard' height.... 

 

Clearly such exclusions do not yet exist, but how long before they do ???? 

 

 

you just seem to be making up clauses insurance policies off the top of your head?

[kwilco]

5 hours ago, khunPer said:

Yes, I designed all my balconies myself...

...and the sizes are within regulations?

[kwilco]

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It's a myth. Are their low railings? Probably. Is it common? No. 

It's alomst universal - measure you railings

[Yellowtail]

28 minutes ago, kwilco said:

It's alomst universal - measure you railings

I did, my "railings" are 93cm, which exceeds the 90cm Thailand code, as well as the 91.5cm code in some US states. 

 

Have you measured yours?

 

 

[kwilco]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I did, my "railings" are 93cm, which exceeds the 90cm Thailand code, as well as the 91.5cm code in some US states. 

 

Have you measured yours?

 

 

that's way too low - in Europe it's 1.1

 

In commercial buildings it is 106 in the USA.

Edited July 7, 2023 by kwilco

[Sheryl]

4 hours ago, The Fugitive said:

Very good point. If someone uses a 'selfie stick' they only have the use of one arm to steady themselves. If taking a selfie 'freehand' they hold their mobile with one hand and press the button with the other. If you were seen/video recorded doing that and toppling over backwards, would that constitute reckless behaviour thus voiding any accident cover?  

Would definitely be considered reckless and excluded on that ground.

 

In most cases insurer will not know the precise way the fall occurred though. This sort of reckless behavior often occurs in conjunction with intoxication.  Likely the insurer in question either had a "balcony exclusion"  or went by the blood dlbohol level.

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

54 minutes ago, kwilco said:

that's way too low - in Europe it's 1.1

 

In commercial buildings it is 106 in the USA.

 

Different from state to state in the U.S. 

 

How high is your balcony, or are you too scared you'll fall off to measure it? 

 

[kwilco]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Different from state to state in the U.S. 

 

How high is your balcony, or are you too scared you'll fall off to measure it? 

 

I don't have a balcony in Thailand.

In Europe its 1.1

What is your point?

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

Would definitely be considered reckless and excluded on that ground.

 

In most cases insurer will not know the precise way the fall occurred though. This sort of reckless behavior often occurs in conjunction with intoxication.  Likely the insurer in question either had a "balcony exclusion"  or went by the blood dlbohol level.

 

 

 

a selfie accident could occur from a slippery floor - the problem being the centre of gravity on a lower rail is all wrong and the person is more likely to topple over the rail.

Edited July 7, 2023 by kwilco

[kwilco]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Different from state to state in the U.S. 

 

How high is your balcony, or are you too scared you'll fall off to measure it? 

 

most states follow international lines

 

Height: According to the International Residential Code (IRC), which is generally adopted by most U.S. cities, decks more than 30-inches above the ground require railings at least 36-inches in height measured from the deck’s surface to the top of the rail.