Hello

 

I am going to rent a car from a local shop in phuket. I am trying to figure what the insurance provided will cover and they replied "1st class insurance"

 

I dont understand what that means, is this an insurance company name or an insurance level? 

 

Thanks

 

1st class is  a class of insurance, for usually everything, first party (your own) damage, second party (the other car), third party injuries, fire and theft) some might have a conditions that there is an 'excess' payable (usually few thousands baht) to claim in case of faults, no other party, ie hit a wall) 

 

but if you rent from a shop, not an actual car rental company, the insurance might not cover rental use, so in an accident they'll ask that you 'borrowed' the car from a friend or never mention that you rented the car

This ^^^.

 

But do ask to see the insurance certificate (and carry a copy, you will need it if you have a shunt) and verify that it covers the vehicle for the purpose of hire (I'll put money on the result of that).

  

Also make sure it has a -0- deductible, or option to purchase.

thread here to explain class 120 insurance for hire cars - 

 

9 hours ago, BigFa said:

Hello

 

I am going to rent a car from a local shop in phuket. I am trying to figure what the insurance provided will cover and they replied "1st class insurance"

 

I dont understand what that means, is this an insurance company name or an insurance level? 

 

Thanks

 

 

As per the excellent responses from digbeth and steve187 (particularly with the linked thread). 

 

IF the 'rental company' replied with 1st Class Insurance, then the car is not covered for rental.

 

1st Class Insurance is fully comprehensive insurance for private vehicles.

 

Thus: Protect yourself and go with a known company or a company who can offer the correct 'Type 120 rental insurance' (as per the linked thread above).

 

 

Thank all for the answer. More clear now. I'll ask to see the insurance contract

3 hours ago, BigFa said:

Thank all for the answer. More clear now. I'll ask to see the insurance contract

The rental car must have "rental car insurance"

What does the basic insurance that you get with your tax sticker cover?

11 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

What does the basic insurance that you get with your tax sticker cover?

That is called "Por Ror Bor" and provides minimal medical coverage to anyone involved in an accident.  All the insurance companies sell it, here's one example;

https://www.axa.co.th/en/compulsory-motor-insurance

14 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

What does the basic insurance that you get with your tax sticker cover?

 

The mandatory Por Ror Bor coverage is a no-fault scheme that provides a limited amount of medical expense coverage for people who are injured in a vehicle accident. It also provides a death benefit and a disability benefit. It is basically a personal accident policy that follows the car with limited benefits accruing anyone injured in an accident.

 

Por Ror Bor does not provide any coverage for damage to the insured vehicle. It also does not provide any third party liability coverage for either bodily injury or property damage. While it is compulsory, it is not the same as the third party liability insurance coverage required in Western countries. 

 

Por Ror Bor was designed to absorb the high volume but low severity expenses that the medical industry was incurring from people without the means to pay and was implemented at the request of the medical industry. It wasn't designed to address the risk transfer needs of the driver or vehicle owner. I would certainly recommend against relying solely upon the Por Ror Bor coverage.

 

 

On 9/24/2024 at 8:01 PM, FruitPudding said:

What does the basic insurance that you get with your tax sticker cover?

injuries, but not damages to property and vehicles, also void if the driver is not licensed or under influence 

5 hours ago, digbeth said:

injuries, but not damages to property and vehicles, also void if the driver is not licensed or under influence 

 

I see. Cheers.

 

All insurance is void though if driver isn't licensed or under influence.

15 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

I see. Cheers.

 

All insurance is void though if driver isn't licensed or under influence.

 

The basic Por Ror Bor policy does not contain an exclusion for driving under the influence and the basic limits should apply even if the driver were under the influence. The higher limits applicable when the driver is not at fault would presumably not apply. The whole point of this cover is to compensate the victims, not protect the driver or owner.

 

Here is an English translation of the Por Ror Bor's exclusions section:

 

18. Exclusions This policy does not cover liability caused by:
18.1 War, invasion, acts of foreign enemy, hostilities or war-like operations
(whether war is declared or not).
18.2 Civil war, military uprising, rebellion, revolution, mutiny, or usurpation
of power by military or by other means, civil commotion assuming the proportions
of or amounting to a popular uprising.
18.3 Nuclear weapons material.
18.4 Ionizing radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear
fuel or from any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel and for the
purpose of this exception, combustion shall include any self-sustaining process of
nuclear fission.
18.5 The motor vehicle is embezzlement, cheated and fraud, extorted, stolen,
blackmailed, threatened, robbery, or gang robbed.
18.6 Use of the Motor Vehicle outside the territorial limits of the Policy.
18.7 Use of the Motor Vehicle for an illegal purpose, e.g. robbery or carrying
of drugs regardless of whether or not the Motor Vehicle has been modified or used to
escape from a criminal offense or escape from the search or arrest of the officers etc.
18.8 Use of the Motor Vehicle for racing.

 

No mention of driving under the influence.

 

Note that any voluntary coverages may be voided by driving under the influence as that coverage would be governed by its own set of exclusions.

3 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

 

The basic Por Ror Bor policy does not contain an exclusion for driving under the influence and the basic limits should apply even if the driver were under the influence. The higher limits applicable when the driver is not at fault would presumably not apply. The whole point of this cover is to compensate the victims, not protect the driver or owner.

 

Here is an English translation of the Por Ror Bor's exclusions section:

 

18. Exclusions This policy does not cover liability caused by:
18.1 War, invasion, acts of foreign enemy, hostilities or war-like operations
(whether war is declared or not).
18.2 Civil war, military uprising, rebellion, revolution, mutiny, or usurpation
of power by military or by other means, civil commotion assuming the proportions
of or amounting to a popular uprising.
18.3 Nuclear weapons material.
18.4 Ionizing radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear
fuel or from any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel and for the
purpose of this exception, combustion shall include any self-sustaining process of
nuclear fission.
18.5 The motor vehicle is embezzlement, cheated and fraud, extorted, stolen,
blackmailed, threatened, robbery, or gang robbed.
18.6 Use of the Motor Vehicle outside the territorial limits of the Policy.
18.7 Use of the Motor Vehicle for an illegal purpose, e.g. robbery or carrying
of drugs regardless of whether or not the Motor Vehicle has been modified or used to
escape from a criminal offense or escape from the search or arrest of the officers etc.
18.8 Use of the Motor Vehicle for racing.

 

No mention of driving under the influence.

 

Note that any voluntary coverages may be voided by driving under the influence as that coverage would be governed by its own set of exclusions.

 

I am not getting your additional point here. 

 

9 hours ago, digbeth said:

injuries, but not damages to property and vehicles, also void if the driver is not licensed or under influence 

 

Wasn't it you who said the Por Ror Bor would be void if the driver was under the influence?

 

And I agreed with you and also pointed out that any other insurance would be void too, if the person was unlicensed or drunk.

22 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

I am not getting your additional point here. 

 

 

 

I am trying to explain that coverage under the basic Por Ror Bor scheme would not be invalidated if the driver were drunk or did not have a valid license. Voluntary insurance would, but not the basic Por Ror Bor. I listed the exclusions of the Por Ror Bor policy to show that there is no exclusion for driving under the influence or not having a driver's license.

 

 

2 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

 

I am trying to explain that coverage under the basic Por Ror Bor scheme would not be invalidated if the driver were drunk or did not have a valid license. Voluntary insurance would, but not the basic Por Ror Bor. I listed the exclusions of the Por Ror Bor policy to show that there is no exclusion for driving under the influence or not having a driver's license.

 

 

I see.

 

11 hours ago, digbeth said:

injuries, but not damages to property and vehicles, also void if the driver is not licensed or under influence 

 

That's not what you said here, hence the miscommunication. 

51 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

I see.

 

 

That's not what you said here, hence the miscommunication. 

 

You are quoting two different posters.

1 hour ago, FruitPudding said:

 

I see.

 

 

That's not what you said here, hence the miscommunication. 

 

Those aren't my words. I'm not digbeth.