Picture courtesy of Khaosod

 

Thailand’s insurance regulator has ruled that insurers must compensate the owner of a petrol station damaged in a recent rocket strike by Cambodian forces, dismissing attempts by the companies involved to classify the incident as an act of war.

 

The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) announced on 4 August, that the insurers are required to pay compensation to Kamolrat Phonsrettalerd, whose PTT petrol station in Sisaket province suffered extensive damage in the 24 July cross-border attack, which left eight people dead.

 

Kamolrat had appealed to the government for support after her insurance claims were initially rejected. The insurers argued that the damage fell under exclusions for war or invasion. The rocket fire caused damage exceeding 21 million baht, forcing the closure of both the petrol station and an adjacent convenience store.

 

“This incident is not classified as a war risk, but rather an armed clash between military forces,” said Kananusorn Thiangtrakul, Deputy Secretary-General of the OIC’s Consumer Protection division. “Skirmishes along the border that are localised and brief in nature do not meet the definition of war or invasion under policy terms.”

 

The Ministry of Energy, despite having no direct authority over insurance matters, played a key role in coordinating a resolution. Col Fueangvitch Aniruthdeva, assistant to Deputy Prime Minister and Energy Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga, accepted a petition from Kamolrat and confirmed the ministry’s involvement in expediting support.

 

An investigation revealed that Kamolrat’s property was insured under two policies, including an Industrial All Risk (IAR) policy that covers structural damage to all buildings on the premises. The OIC has fast-tracked the usual 45-day claim process, starting from the date of the incident.

 

The OIC also confirmed it is working to facilitate compensation for other victims of the attack, including those with personal insurance coverage. For individuals without policies, insurers have been asked to consider offering voluntary compensation. One child victim has been found to be covered by a school accident insurance plan.

 

“The OIC has reached an agreement with the insurers involved,” said Kananusorn. “They now accept that this was a brief military skirmish, not a war and that the terms of the insurance policies require payment.”

 

Kamolrat stressed that her petrol station remains under a bank loan repayment plan, making the insurance compensation vital to her recovery and the continuation of her business.

 

 

  Adapted by Asean Now from Khoasod 2025-08-05

 

 

 

I'm not a fan of insurance companies and their methods of avoiding payments.

Whether this is an act of war or not might be for a court to decide.

But I do applaud this government stance at least in principle - this business owner and all the victims and their families deserve to be generously compensated for their plights.

Should the insurance company be made to pay, perhaps.

I also believe that they won't roll over and make the payment just because someone in government says so  - they will send a loss adjuster and attempt to screw them out of as much of the claim as possible.

This is where central government can step in and make an urgent payment to the business operator who appears to have lost everything in this incident.

They have the money, make them whole immediately and then any legal argument with the insurance companies involved is between central government and the insurer and the government has teeth and the ability to counteract anything the insurance companies use to fight it.

There's no need to delay.

The government could come out on top here by paying for all damaged property repairs and then pursue the Cambodian government if they desire a refund - but that's an inter governmental thing - not something business operators and home owners should have to deal with - even the insurance companies have some sympathy here - they shouldn't have to deal with this kind of issue really.

 

Off topic post misnaming a politician removed.

3 hours ago, ukrules said:

The government could come out on top here by paying for all damaged property repairs and then pursue the Cambodian government if they desire a refund - but that's an inter governmental thing - not something business operators and home owners should have to deal with - even the insurance companies have some sympathy here - they shouldn't have to deal with this kind of issue really.

100%

Interesting,  I wonder if multiple insured buildings were destroyed,  the insurance would need to pay them all ?  Just an observation.   Like NOT an act of God,  but really an act of Oden , a lesser diety ? 

No no no, this was never a act of war

😁😃🙃

This is crazy, the Terms of the Policy state War so why should "we" through higher premiums have to pay for this  😡

 

If the Gov wishes to pay then fine but NOT the insurance companies

1 minute ago, JoePai said:

This is crazy, the Terms of the Policy state War so why should "we" through higher premiums have to pay for this  😡

 

If the Gov wishes to pay then fine but NOT the insurance companies

When was war declared ?

2 hours ago, LudwigK said:

No no no, this was never a act of war

😁😃🙃

So why does the the Gov. and Army accept they have "Prisoners of War" ??

Quotes (from another newspaper :

Army and Foreign Affairs officials took Bangkok-based representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to visit the 18 Cambodian prisoners of war at a detention facility of the 2nd Army Region.

The visit also showed Thailand strictly observes international humanitarian principles, especially the Geneva Convention of 1949, and transparently respects the human dignity of prisoners of war.

The statement said the ICRC is an international humanitarian organisation that directly supervises the conditions of prisoners of war.



 

2 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

When was war declared ?

See my post below yours 

9 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

“They now accept that this was a brief military skirmish, not a war and that the terms of the insurance policies require payment.”

 

It would be interesting to see how the policy is worded so that a foreign country lobbing missiles during a border dispute doesn't qualify as an "act of war".