21 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

To be fair, I’ve also had plenty of claims approved over the years.

My criticism is less about insurers denying obviously invalid claims, and more about the policy wording itself - particularly the amount of “wiggle room” built into the grey-area situations.

Examples being things like a girl getting on the back of a motorcycle, a brief weekend trip out of the insured country technically voiding cover, or an insurer later using something as minor as a 1,500 baht bar bill to argue the claimant had been drinking and was therefore negligent or intoxicated (which has happened given some reports I've read).

With travel insurance especially, it often feels like the small and routine claims go through without issue. But when something genuinely serious and expensive happens, and the circumstances fall anywhere near one of those policy grey areas, insurers become extremely quick to deny or limit cover.

I experienced something similar myself. I suffered an injury overseas and the travel insurance initially covered the initial medical costs incurred abroad (which were relatively cheap - and just a cast to immobilise torn ligaments / tendons and keep me going for a couple of days).

Rather than undergoing a very expensive operation overseas, I chose to return to Thailand and have the surgery here instead (with a known Dr), which was significantly cheaper and ultimately would have saved the insurer money.

Only after returning did I discover that the policy would only cover treatment while I remained overseas. The moment I returned to my point of origin, the cover effectively stopped.

I’ll admit I was naïve and didn’t realise that at the time, but nowhere in the policy wording was this made clear. After the claim issue arose, I went back through the documentation specifically looking for clarification and still couldn’t find anything that clearly explained that ongoing treatment for an injury sustained abroad would immediately cease once you returned home.

Apparently, that’s simply something travellers are expected to already know - I'll admit, not knowing this was my own fault, I thought covered all facets of predictable risk.

"Examples being things like a girl getting on the back of a motorcycle, a brief weekend trip out of the insured country technically voiding cover"

"Only after returning did I discover that the policy would only cover treatment while I remained overseas. The moment I returned to my point of origin, the cover effectively stopped."

This is a technicality, and you think people should be covered in countries not included in the policy? Per you, one should be able to buy travel insurance for India, and when injured, fly back to the US for treatment, yes?

51 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"Examples being things like a girl getting on the back of a motorcycle, a brief weekend trip out of the insured country technically voiding cover"

"Only after returning did I discover that the policy would only cover treatment while I remained overseas. The moment I returned to my point of origin, the cover effectively stopped."

This is a technicality, and you think people should be covered in countries not included in the policy? Per you, one should be able to buy travel insurance for India, and when injured, fly back to the US for treatment, yes?

The issue is, that if you buy a policy let's say from UK to Belgium, and return in the middle of the trip to the UK for whatever reason, the trip has ended. Therefore there's no cover for the time after the return to Belgium. This is policy dependent.

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The issue is, that if you buy a policy let's say from UK to Belgium, and return in the middle of the trip to the UK for whatever reason, the trip has ended. Therefore there's no cover for the time after the return to Belgium. This is policy dependent.

Is that not to be expected?

5 hours ago, Off Piste said:

I've been here ages and always used private hospitals, I'd love to know the procedure/protocol how to use a government hospital in Chiang mai for example...........

Go in and register then join the queue if it's not an emergency.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

"Examples being things like a girl getting on the back of a motorcycle, a brief weekend trip out of the insured country technically voiding cover"

"Only after returning did I discover that the policy would only cover treatment while I remained overseas. The moment I returned to my point of origin, the cover effectively stopped."

This is a technicality, and you think people should be covered in countries not included in the policy? Per you, one should be able to buy travel insurance for India, and when injured, fly back to the US for treatment, yes?

Not quite - my point is that ALL policy wording itself should be clear enough to remove ambiguity and guesswork.

I’m a seasoned traveller and I still managed to misunderstand the scope of cover, only discovering the limitation when I actually made a claim - I'm sure others find themselves in the same situation.

In my case, I was fully covered for treatment while in Japan. After discussions with the insurer, I chose to return to Thailand and undergo the operation here

Your extreme “India versus US pricing” comparison make sense - but, the cost difference was simply substantial enough that it 'would have' saved the insurer money having the operation once back in Thailand (and I preferred that option too)

Only afterwards did I discover that the operation would not be covered because the policy effectively terminated the moment I returned to my country of origin (Thailand).

Fortunately my health insurance in Thailand covered the treatment - the travel insurance was taken out as a precaution, as the 'health insurance wording' was also ambiguous and not clear on 'winter sports' - so extra cover taken out.

Even looking back through the policy wording afterwards, I still could not find anything that clearly explained that treatment 'required' for an injury sustained during the insured trip would be halted once I returned home. I now understand that this is how many travel insurance policies operate, and your explanation makes that clearer.

However, at the time, I genuinely believed that if an injury occurred while I was insured overseas, then all medically necessary treatment relating to that injury would continue to be covered, provided I remained within the listed countries on the policy (i.e. Japan and returning to Thailand - obviously not covered if seeking treatment in a country not listed)..

For example, had my policy been written as a UK resident travelling between the UK, Thailand, and Japan, then the exact same treatment would apparently have remained covered under the travel insurance policy - or thats as I understand it - but that could also be incorrect, as its not clear - maybe treatment needs to be undertaken in the

That’s precisely the kind of ambiguity I object to - even after experiencing these situations the waters remain muddied.

Get your health insurance when you leave your own country. I took a few risks when i was young, but always had money to

pay incase I was injured. Now I will not leave Canada without getting covered for my time ut of the country.

300 thousand baht to cover my cost of a stint after my heart attack 2 years ago, sure glad I was covered.

2 minutes ago, Stargeezr said:

Get your health insurance when you leave your own country. I took a few risks when i was young, but always had money to

pay incase I was injured. Now I will not leave Canada without getting covered for my time ut of the country.

300 thousand baht to cover my cost of a stint after my heart attack 2 years ago, sure glad I was covered.

Health insurance ? or Travel Insurance ?

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It is not possible for insurance companies to list every event that is included or excluded.

If you buy a month of travel insurance from Tommy's Travel for $8, not much is covered.

My annual travel insurance is £300. I would like to reassured that if something goes wrong then the company I gave my money with reimburse me rather than going to the ends of the Earth to not allow it. Why is it impossible to make it clear what they cover and what they don't. They obviously went to great trouble to make the policy 91 pages long. If it is not specifically listed then it is excluded is a license to leave the traveller high and dry.

So what is it:

What is not included

5. Any claim arising from an Accident occurring while You are motorcycling as a rider

or a passenger.

 

Motorcycling as a rider or passenger on a machine over 125cc

 

15. Failure to wear a motorcycle helmet

Bodily Injury or death occurring as a consequence of You not wearing a

recognised motorcycle helmet while on a motorcycle, moped, motor-scooter,

quadbike or similar.

First is says No motor cycling as rider or passenger

then the motor cycle has to be less than 125cc

then says that you must be wearing a helmet.

Talk about contradicting yourself.

I did read it before but now can't find it but it says that you must have a license that covers riding a motorcycle.

Well that is all as clear as mud.

And people say you should read the small print.

20 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

My annual travel insurance is £300. I would like to reassured that if something goes wrong then the company I gave my money with reimburse me rather than going to the ends of the Earth to not allow it. Why is it impossible to make it clear what they cover and what they don't. They obviously went to great trouble to make the policy 91 pages long. If it is not specifically listed then it is excluded is a license to leave the traveller high and dry.

£300 a year is not much.

There are too many things to list.

You claim: "If it is not specifically listed then it is excluded is a license to leave the traveller high and dry.".

Is the same as: If it is not specifically, excluded, then it is covered. Is that not a license to cheat the insurance company?

It's not in the business interests of insurance co's to honour a policy.

They will find a way out if they can.

It's their business model.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

£300 a year is not much.

There are too many things to list.

You claim: "If it is not specifically listed then it is excluded is a license to leave the traveller high and dry.".

Is the same as: If it is not specifically, excluded, then it is covered. Is that not a license to cheat the insurance company?

You previously mentioned $8. Who is cheating the insurance company? They like to cheat us. The only time I have made a significant claim, was following the 2004 tsunami. The insurance company was a cheating, whinging, inconsiderate, unhelpful bunch of 5h1t bags. After they complained about the overtime they were having to put in to deal with tsunami claims I very nearly paid them a visit to shove their phone some where unmentionable. I did say to them after 300,000 people died I didn't give two hoots about how much OT they did. They got paid now pay up.

6 hours ago, Geoff914 said:

You previously mentioned $8.

I did, so?

6 hours ago, Geoff914 said:

Who is cheating the insurance company?

Any number of people try to cheat insurance companies, do you believe otherwise?

6 hours ago, Geoff914 said:

They like to cheat us. The only time I have made a significant claim, was following the 2004 tsunami. The insurance company was a cheating, whinging, inconsiderate, unhelpful bunch of 5h1t bags. After they complained about the overtime they were having to put in to deal with tsunami claims I very nearly paid them a visit to shove their phone some where unmentionable. I did say to them after 300,000 people died I didn't give two hoots about how much OT they did. They got paid now pay up.

I have never been cheated by an insurance company and have filed countless claims. I few had to be resubmitted with clarification, but they were ultimately paid.

What company cheated you out of your significant tsunami claim, and what reason did they give to not pay you?

Incidentally, of the 300,000 people that died, how many was the insurance company able to bring back to life?

8 hours ago, Woke to Sounds said:

It's not in the business interests of insurance co's to honour a policy.

They will find a way out if they can.

It's their business model.

Insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums, not paying out claims.

What is covered, is covered, what is not covered is not covered.

20 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

One example would be the alcohol exclusion clauses commonly found in travel insurance policies. In principle, they sound reasonable. In practice, however, the wording is often vague enough to leave considerable room for interpretation at claim stage.

For example, imagine walking along an uneven pavement in Thailand, twisting your ankle and tearing a ligament after having had a few beers earlier in the evening. You attend hospital, bloods are taken, and the insurer later argues that alcohol contributed to the incident. That is not a hypothetical concern - insurers do, in some cases, investigate whether alcohol was directly or indirectly connected to an accident or injury.

There have also been publicised disputes involving serious injuries abroad where insurers initially declined or questioned claims because alcohol was allegedly involved. I recall a case involving an Australian woman seriously injured after a fall at a hotel in Thailand, where the insurer argued intoxication exclusions applied after they 'estimated' her BAC to be high based on her height, weight and bar-bill and used an expert to estimate how drunk she was based on her walking (from CCTV footage).

The real issue is that many policies do not clearly define what level of alcohol consumption invalidates cover. Some insurers specify a BAC threshold, while others rely on broader wording such as “under the influence” or “excessive alcohol consumption”. That creates understandable uncertainty, particularly where higher-value claims are involved and investigations become far more detailed - Of course, some will argue "why should someone be covered when they get smashed and walk out into traffic without looking ?" etc - but thats the point of holiday cover, guards drop, people indulge and that line between recklessly intoxicated and happily merry is a very grey line given peoples different tolerance levels for alcohol in the first place.

And yes, someone will inevitably respond with statistics showing that 90% of claims are paid out. That may well be true overall. But the persistent distrust people have towards insurers generally stems less from routine claims, and more from concerns over how exclusions, ambiguities, and policy wording may be interpreted when substantial payouts are involved - that 'simple broken' ankle and treatment (cast) from the pavement slip may not draw a great deal of attention, if exactly the same incident involved a head or spine injury and significantly greater costs insurers the claim has to be water tight.

There is also the separate issue of claims being initially rejected, delayed, or disputed until the policyholder escalates the matter through formal complaints procedures, ombudsman schemes, or legal pressure, at which point insurers sometimes reverse their position and ultimately pay out in accordance with the policy wording.

That does not necessarily mean insurers are acting unlawfully as a matter of routine, but it does contribute to the widespread perception that parts of the industry are structurally incentivised to minimise payouts wherever reasonably possible. After all, insurance companies are commercial enterprises, and claims handling departments exist not only to validate legitimate claims, but also to identify exclusions, inconsistencies, non-disclosures, or technical grounds upon which liability may be reduced or declined.

There have been numerous ombudsman decisions in the UK and elsewhere where insurers were found to have interpreted policy wording too narrowly, relied upon ambiguous exclusions, or rejected claims in circumstances where the ombudsman later determined the claim should in fact have been honoured. That, understandably, reinforces public scepticism - particularly when policyholders feel they must become quasi-legal experts simply to obtain the cover they believed they had purchased in the first place.

(and no LL - I'm not going to quote examples - I've already run through your little dance on this issue in the past and earlier in this thread).

90% of claims are paid out ? How are we supposed to trust that stat ?

I used to get cancellation insurance on flights and insurance on this and that. Never once had a claim get past 1st base. So I basically i don't bother with any of it

On 5/9/2026 at 12:44 PM, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Yes, agreed, but her policy had expired, so you cannot expect the insurance company to be responsible; also don't we know if the motorcycle she was on was licensed and she wasn't wearing a helmet, which invalidates most policies even if they are in valid date

I was just replying to Phil's question about whether a policy would cover you if you are on a win bike

On 5/9/2026 at 12:47 PM, NanLaew said:

Question: What is a "licensed motorcycle taxi" in Thailand?

Answer: Non existent.

They do claim that the Win drivers are licenced by the DLT and are meant to carry ID cards. It probably is something to consider if you are a tourist and thinking of going by Grab or Bolt. I would doubt the rideshare guys are licenced. It should be easy to check if they are legit as they should have yellow plates like the songtaews.

1 hour ago, Harsh Jones said:

90% of claims are paid out ? How are we supposed to trust that stat ?

I used to get cancellation insurance on flights and insurance on this and that. Never once had a claim get past 1st base. So I basically i don't bother with any of it

A) research it yourself / b) take someone like LiverpoolLou at their word - its the stat he's repeated on these forums quite a lot - seems reasonable.

As far as cancellation insurance on flights - thats trickier.

If the flight is departing the EU, has a delay of >4 hours with a ticketed Journey of >3500 km you can get €600 compensation (worked 4x for me so far) - Airlines always reject the claim first time - they know most people will give up at the first hurdle.

I used to get cancellation insurance on flights and insurance on this and that. Never once had a claim get past 1st base. So I basically i don't bother with any of it

I feel you... In about half a dozen claims I've submitted since 1999 when I first started traveling international, I've never gotten one paid. There's always something around page 86 in the policy that excludes coverage for whatever happened to me.

31 minutes ago, Wongkitlo said:

They do claim that the Win drivers are licenced by the DLT and are meant to carry ID cards. It probably is something to consider if you are a tourist and thinking of going by Grab or Bolt. I would doubt the rideshare guys are licenced. It should be easy to check if they are legit as they should have yellow plates like the songtaews.

Some yes, some no.

Win-riders are supposed to have 'yellow number-plates' which indicates their motorcycles are licensed for paid-public-transport - most are registered normally - so does that mean they are a legal taxi bike ?

There is also the helmet clause - in some travel insurance ? must use an approved helmet - which I assume means not using a plastic crappy bucket they give you.

Then there are 125cc clauses - and most bikes in Thailand are at least 150cc now.

So, at first look - even riding pillion on a moto-taxi is out of the question and excluded for most travel insurance - or is it ? - its never perfectly clear.

15 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

If the flight is departing the EU, has a delay of >4 hours with a ticketed Journey of >3500 km you can get €600 compensation (worked 4x for me so far) - Airlines always reject the claim first time - they know most people will give up at the first hurdle.

I know it isn't, but do you know if the UK would similarly come under that EU umbrella or are there seperate regs....?

3 minutes ago, Off Piste said:

I know it isn't, but do you know if the UK would similarly come under that EU umbrella or are there seperate regs....?

Specifically regarding delayed flights: passenger compensation rules absolutely still apply to flights departing from the UK. Since Brexit, EU Regulation 261/2004 was effectively retained in UK law as “UK261”, and the protections are broadly the same. That means a flight from the UK to somewhere outside Europe - including Thailand - can still qualify for compensation if the delay was within the airline’s control.

Airlines will often try to wriggle out of paying and lie outright. I’ve just gone through this myself. It took four emails, including outright false claims from the airline saying my case was invalid because the destination was outside the EU. Only when I escalated it through an ADR dispute resolution service did they suddenly admit compensation was owed and apologise for the “miscommunication”.

One important caveat: compensation usually does not apply in “extraordinary circumstances” outside the airline’s control - things like war, airspace closures, severe weather, or disruption linked to Middle East conflict. But if the delay is caused by something within the airline’s control - staffing issues, operational failures, or even many airline staff strikes - then they can still be liable.

12 minutes ago, Off Piste said:

I know it isn't, but do you know if the UK would similarly come under that EU umbrella or are there seperate regs....?

PM me if you have a direct question about a specific flight delay - I can advise if you have a valid claim and how to go about it.

I've gone through the process a few times (with 4x different airlines).

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

PM me if you have a direct question about a specific flight delay - I can advise if you have a valid claim and how to go about it.

I've gone through the process a few times (with 4x different airlines).

You're a gentleman, I appreciate that......no claims just as yet, thank goodness.............

56 minutes ago, impulse said:

There's always something around page 86 in the policy that excludes coverage for whatever happened to me.

That'll be in the real fine print then?

There's always something around page 86 in the policy that excludes coverage for whatever happened to me.

That'll be in the real fine print then?

That's the problem, and it's the topic of a Canadian expose on the subject (CBC, I think) YouTube. Titled something like "Are you covered? A look at the Travel Insurance Industry." The gist of the CBC documentary is that the language is so complicated that you need both a lawyer for the legal terms and a doctor for the medical terms. Normal people can't possibly be expected to understand the terms and limitations of the policies, and that's not accidental. They want you to give up.

Sadly, I lost that hard drive (crashed) and I'm staying in China where I can't access YouTube legally. Next time I'm in Thailand (later this week), I'll look for the actual link. It's a rather sensationalized "documentary", but worth watching if you travel a lot.

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

That's the problem, and it's the topic of a Canadian expose on the subject (CBC, I think) YouTube. Titled something like "Are you covered? A look at the Travel Insurance Industry." The gist of the CBC documentary is that the language is so complicated that you need both a lawyer for the legal terms and a doctor for the medical terms. Normal people can't possibly be expected to understand the terms and limitations of the policies, and that's not accidental. They want you to give up.

Sadly, I lost that hard drive (crashed) and I'm staying in China where I can't access YouTube legally. Next time I'm in Thailand (later this week), I'll look for the actual link. It's a rather sensationalized "documentary", but worth watching if you travel a lot.

This one ?

This one ?

Maybe... I can't open it from where I'm staying. Or even see the title.

On 5/9/2026 at 12:47 PM, NanLaew said:

Question: What is a "licensed motorcycle taxi" in Thailand?

Answer: Non existent.

I replied mentioning the yellow plates on Win motos. Then I went for a walk around Pattaya and didn't see one yellow plates🤣

15 minutes ago, Wongkitlo said:

I replied mentioning the yellow plates on Win motos. Then I went for a walk around Pattaya and didn't see one yellow plates🤣

I am sure @Liverpool Lou will know why.