British Insurers Wont Pay Up For Bkk Blockade

[taxexile]

Insurers wont pay up for Bangkok blockade

Travellers seeking compensation for expenses incurred during the week-long siege of Bangkoks airports have been warned they can expect short shrift from insurers.

In most cases, travel insurance is there to provide delay, cancellation or curtailment cover for the most likely eventualities, such as industrial action or technical failure, said Malcolm Tarling of the Association of British Insurers. The airport being stormed by antigovernment protesters is not a likely eventuality, and comes under the heading of civil unrest.

The Thai authorities provided free accommodation for those stranded, and meal allowances of £40 a day, but the payments applied only to designated hotels and many travellers say they were unaware of the scheme.

Brian McClintock, now back in Leeds, says the crisis cost him dearly. My wife and I spent more than £500 on hotels before finding alternative flights. Then we spent another £200 on a taxi to Chiang Mai because there was no room on the train, and £100 for an overnight stay before the plane left. I’ve now learnt that none of this is recoverable.

Hundreds of passengers have lost annual leave and face bills for extended parking, kennels and other expenses.

In a display of festive goodwill, however, BAA said those caught up in the crisis will not be charged additional parking costs for BAA car parks.

Meanwhile, the reopening of the airports has caused controversy. The declaration that Suvarnabhumi international airport was fully open prompted the embassies of Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the United States to deliver a joint letter of protest at the unseemly haste in resuming operations before a full safety audit. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) is advising travellers to avoid air travel into or through Bangkok airports for the foreseeable future.

Thai Airways, Singapore Airlines, Gulf Air and Cathay have already resumed flights to the city, with BA restarting today, and despite the FCOs advice, tour operators are advising passengers due to travel in the next few days that normal booking conditions will apply - so they cannot expect a refund if they cancel their trip.

The Thai government has 30 days to find a new prime-ministerial candidate, but protesters say they will reoccupy the airports if they dislike the choice.

sunday times , uk

Edited December 7, 2008 by taxexile

[quiksilva]

Brian McClintock, now back in Leeds, says the crisis cost him dearly. My wife and I spent more than £500 on hotels before finding alternative flights. Then we spent another £200 on a taxi to Chiang Mai because there was no room on the train, and £100 for an overnight stay before the plane left. I’ve now learnt that none of this is recoverable.

LOL No s.it sherlock!

This guy spent 200 pounds on a taxi to Chiangmai? Thats about 10,000 Baht of today's money!! Where was he, when he started, Singapore? The mind boggles!

Then he spends 100 pounds for one night stay, i.e. 5000 Baht a night for a hotel. Which implies that basically he was unwilling to use one of the nominated hotels, where they could stay for free, but boo hoo nobody held his hand and told him what to do.. (get out much Brian?)

Come on.. it was everywhere, every major English language news paper and media channel both here and abroad had mentioned it, surely his travel agent would have known about it, it was even on the frontpage of the British Embassy website... or perhaps he doesn't know how the internet works?

Perhaps its time Mr McClintock learned how a computer works, and whilst he is getting his IT lessons, perhaps he should also learn that hotel taxis from 5 star hotels tend to charge exorbitant rates.

Edited December 8, 2008 by quiksilva

[chiang mai]

Brian McClintock, now back in Leeds, says the crisis cost him dearly. My wife and I spent more than £500 on hotels before finding alternative flights. Then we spent another £200 on a taxi to Chiang Mai because there was no room on the train, and £100 for an overnight stay before the plane left. I’ve now learnt that none of this is recoverable.

LOL No s.it sherlock!

This guy spent 200 pounds on a taxi to Chiangmai? Thats about 10,000 Baht of today's money!! Where was he, when he started, Singapore? The mind boggles!

Then he spends 100 pounds for one night stay, i.e. 5000 Baht a night for a hotel. Which implies that basically he was unwilling to use one of the nominated hotels, where they could stay for free, but boo hoo nobody held his hand and told him what to do.. (get out much Brian?)

Come on.. it was everywhere, every major English language news paper and media channel both here and abroad had mentioned it, surely his travel agent would have known about it, it was even on the frontpage of the British Embassy website... or perhaps he doesn't know how the internet works?

Perhaps its time Mr McClintock learned how a computer works, and whilst he is getting his IT lessons, perhaps he should also learn that hotel taxis from 5 star hotels tend to charge exorbitant rates.

A 10K Baht taxi ride from Bangkok to CM is entirely likely. Phuket and CM are about more or less the same distance from Bangkok - there have been many many reports of taxis capitalizing on the airport closure and charging 8/10k to Bangkok from Phuket. I have friends who arrived at Utapo and took a taxi to their home in CM and the cost was 12k baht!

As far as hotel costs are concerned; 5k a night for a good hotel is not exactly exorbitant given the couple were on holiday and as for not knowing about the reimbursement - my better half works in reception at a hotel in Phuket and nobody at the hotel was aware of how the reimbursement program actually worked. Some guests thought they simply picked a hotel and that the charges would get billed to the TAT, others, including the very capable farang management thought that the hotel should issue an invoice that the guests could use to reclaim the costs from TAT afterward. I think in summary and at a mimimum you are being too harsh on the OP.

Edited December 8, 2008 by chiang mai

[Eff1n2ret]

This is my insurers' reply to the email I sent them when we were stuck there last week:-

"Please note that we are unable to confirm coverage of any claim at this time,

and in this partricular instance we must advise that, as the incident relates

to war, terrorism, civil unrest etc, it may not be covered by your insurance.

It may be possible for you to claim for Curtailment, Medical Expenses and/or

Personal Possessions, however we would be required to refer any such claims to

the insurers of your policy for their assessment.

Regarding additional accommodation, car hire and travel expenses, these are

normally beyond the scope of cover in circumstances such as these, however

should you wish to claim for these please retain all invoices, receipts,

tickets, documentation etc."

As we have our own place there, our only additional cost for the 7 extra days was car hire, and rail tickets from Gatwick to home (our prebooked coach tickets from Heathrow being unuseable). I've come to the conclusion that it's not worth arguing the toss over not much more than 200quid for an extra week in the sunshine.

[nonthaburial]

Oh come on chappies, how can you expect insurers to drive around in their Rollers if they have to pay out on such trivial things. I have never trusted insurers and probably never will

[quiksilva]

chiang mai my comments were not directed at the OP, rather towards the subject of the Sunday Times interview, who neglected really to help themselves. My point is, if it really affected them they could have done more to inquire. I know I did as I had my mother with me at the time who has had her stay extended by 8 days (which she is very happy about).

As to the 200 pound taxi fare I maintain that the chap in the story, and your friends were "taken for a ride".

I can hire a luxury minivan with a driver, all to myself, for the princely sum of 2000 Baht a day, excluding fuel. Now I know they are gas guzzlers but seriously 8000 Baht in fuel? Chiangmai is 'only' 700 kms away and 8000 Baht buys you approx 400 litres of diesel.

I honestly dont know any van / car which manages a fuel consumption of just 0.5kms / litre, although i suspect if they exist they'd get you where you were going pretty quick, or be able to tow the Eiffel Tower in their wake.

[PhilHarries]

The declaration that Suvarnabhumi international airport was fully open prompted the embassies of Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the United States to deliver a joint letter of protest at the unseemly haste in resuming operations before a full safety audit.

Since when has the European Union had an Embassy?

Travel insurance is no different to any form of insurance. They will pull every stroke in the book, and a few that aren't, to avoid paying out.

[chiang mai]

chiang mai my comments were not directed at the OP, rather towards the subject of the Sunday Times interview, who neglected really to help themselves. My point is, if it really affected them they could have done more to inquire. I know I did as I had my mother with me at the time who has had her stay extended by 8 days (which she is very happy about).

As to the 200 pound taxi fare I maintain that the chap in the story, and your friends were "taken for a ride".

I can hire a luxury minivan with a driver, all to myself, for the princely sum of 2000 Baht a day, excluding fuel. Now I know they are gas guzzlers but seriously 8000 Baht in fuel? Chiangmai is 'only' 700 kms away and 8000 Baht buys you approx 400 litres of diesel.

I honestly dont know any van / car which manages a fuel consumption of just 0.5kms / litre, although i suspect if they exist they'd get you where you were going pretty quick, or be able to tow the Eiffel Tower in their wake.

I appreciate you were not refering to the OP but to the OP's content.

My point is that a) during the recent "crisis" there was a fair amount of profiteering taking place and usually the victim was a tourist who is unfamiliar with Thailand et al, and, I remember when I first came here many years ago when I knew absolutely nothing about what/where/how/how much and despite being a reasonably smart chap who is somewhat worldly wise, I was "taken" a number of times. It's easy to forget after you've been here a while that for the first time visitor, Thailand can be a very daunting place. So let's not be too harsh on the "newbie" holiday makers who paid over the odds and didn't do the things that we, with our experience, might do.

[quiksilva]

Yes I can see that, and thats a fair point of view, and yes I was probably overly harsh.

I suppose what got my goat was the fact that this story is unfairly alarmist, and potentially very damaging to the country's reputation, and Thailand really doesn't need any help doing that!

In this case The Sunday Times (a paper I usually respect) have cherry picked a single story of a naive tourist who got ripped off in order to give its story a bit more 'bite'.

The problem with that is that it is not reflective of the actual situation for the vast majority of people. Yes some are out of pocket, many in fact, nobody denies that, but to be out of pocket to that tune is nobody's fault but their own. Other choices were available.

No doubt there was some profiteering going on (and probably still is) but the truth is that happens all the time, and god knows taxi drivers can be the worse the culprits of them all, but that in and of its self is hardly newsworthy.

Edited December 8, 2008 by quiksilva

[madjbs]

Obviously they were spending as much as they could as they thought they could claim it all back. They were probably staying in 500 baht hostels before the 5000 baht hotel in Chiang Mai. 5000 is a lot for a CM hotel....... Too bad they got caught out for not reading their policy or doing any research.......

[chiang mai]

Obviously they were spending as much as they could as they thought they could claim it all back. They were probably staying in 500 baht hostels before the 5000 baht hotel in Chiang Mai. 5000 is a lot for a CM hotel....... Too bad they got caught out for not reading their policy or doing any research.......

Obviously you say, it's only obvious that what you suggest is true to people who do that kind of thing themselves! How's about if they were just normal average everyday people spending a little more on holiday than they know is appropriate, something we all do, and living to a standard they are used to? Backpackers, really really doubtful! BTW 5k per night at a good hotel in CM is not a lot, 15k a night at the Chedi is a lot, but it's all relative to how much a person can afford.

[chiang mai]

Yes I can see that, and thats a fair point of view, and yes I was probably overly harsh.

I suppose what got my goat was the fact that this story is unfairly alarmist, and potentially very damaging to the country's reputation, and Thailand really doesn't need any help doing that!

In this case The Sunday Times (a paper I usually respect) have cherry picked a single story of a naive tourist who got ripped off in order to give its story a bit more 'bite'.

The problem with that is that it is not reflective of the actual situation for the vast majority of people. Yes some are out of pocket, many in fact, nobody denies that, but to be out of pocket to that tune is nobody's fault but their own. Other choices were available.

No doubt there was some profiteering going on (and probably still is) but the truth is that happens all the time, and god knows taxi drivers can be the worse the culprits of them all, but that in and of its self is hardly newsworthy.

And the real culprit is UK newspaper reporting, totally agreed. Many of the problems facing the UK currently could be solved if the UK press could just be managed a little better. Sell copy not news is the moto.

[Martian]

It's the same old insurance scam.......collect premiums as quickly and as high as possible but deny claims with any and every excuse possible to keep the money. I've never understood why people buy travel insurance (other than travel medical), I consider them real suckers.

I purchased a travel medical plan here in the USA at 50 bucks for a 2 week LOS trip and had no problem receiving full payment on my broken tooth claim. That was with AIG, which was close to failing at the time.

Martian

Edited December 9, 2008 by Martian

[BarryM]

Brian McClintock, now back in Leeds, says the crisis cost him dearly. My wife and I spent more than £500 on hotels before finding alternative flights. Then we spent another £200 on a taxi to Chiang Mai because there was no room on the train, and £100 for an overnight stay before the plane left. I’ve now learnt that none of this is recoverable.

LOL No s.it sherlock!

This guy spent 200 pounds on a taxi to Chiangmai? Thats about 10,000 Baht of today's money!! Where was he, when he started, Singapore? The mind boggles!

Then he spends 100 pounds for one night stay, i.e. 5000 Baht a night for a hotel. Which implies that basically he was unwilling to use one of the nominated hotels, where they could stay for free, but boo hoo nobody held his hand and told him what to do.. (get out much Brian?)

Come on.. it was everywhere, every major English language news paper and media channel both here and abroad had mentioned it, surely his travel agent would have known about it, it was even on the frontpage of the British Embassy website... or perhaps he doesn't know how the internet works?

Perhaps its time Mr McClintock learned how a computer works, and whilst he is getting his IT lessons, perhaps he should also learn that hotel taxis from 5 star hotels tend to charge exorbitant rates.

Exactly - what a moron for believing he was in a country that welcomed tourists other than just looking to fleece them

[gk10002000]

In the past I bought travel insurers from several of the online companies. I read all the fine print and most were pretty clear that civil unrest, and riots, etc. would not be covered.

[torrenova]

I also agree that anyone over a certain age (perhaps 25 ?) who has half a brain would know what the general exclusions were to travel insurance policies. Now if you had an annual business traveller policy or better, then you might find that these exclusions are much reduced in number and scope.

Armed with that knowledge, you would know that you were on your own cost wise and likely responsible for any costs incurred. It is this point which is going to make people avoid Thailand as a tourist destination.

[mrtoad]

This sort of thing has been in the small print for a long, long time. Fotr those that did get caught up in this, and thought they would have been able to fall back on insurance it is pretty dissapointing. Sadly, insurance companies don't like paying out, and where they could have used a bit of discretion on this incident, they are unwilling to.

[MyphuketLife]

US insurance companies are not paying out as well because the fine print states that they don't have to pay as a result of civil unrest.

[Chaimai]

I also agree that anyone over a certain age (perhaps 25 ?) who has half a brain would know what the general exclusions were to travel insurance policies. Now if you had an annual business traveller policy or better, then you might find that these exclusions are much reduced in number and scope.

Armed with that knowledge, you would know that you were on your own cost wise and likely responsible for any costs incurred. It is this point which is going to make people avoid Thailand as a tourist destination.

I agree with this, and Quicksilva's points, entirely. Most of us are grown-ups and have to take responsibility for the situations we find ourselves in.

I accept that I was a lone traveller so didn't have the baggage of a whinging family to consider. However, the points are:-

1. The small print has always been there.

2. Some form of travel warning has been in place for Thailand for sometime.

3. Stick to the Costa del Sol if the Far East intimidates you (frankly I would rather face civil unrest in Thailand than the dregs on the Costa del Sol)

4. Think and act for yourself. Don't rely on your own government, your insurer or the Thai government to bail you out - make your own decisions and be prepared to pay for them.

In my case, I took the offer of Gulf Air to reschedule my flight and I re-booked from 1st December to the 9th in the expectation/hope that the airport protest would be over by the King's birthday. As it happened I was right - I enjoyed an additional 8 days in a place that I love to be and 2 of those nights were cost free in a 4 star hotel in Bangkok (thanks to the Thai government's very fair compensation scheme.)

Unlike one of the posters I didn't get a £200 taxi, I took a VIP bus from Buriram to Bangkok for less 500 Baht.

I was lucky that my expectation of what would happen came to fruition. However, I spent the equivalent of one full day researching the alternatives and, if the protest had continued, I would have travelled to Cambobia to get a flight to KL and then onto London. I estimated that it would have cost me £300 net (after China Air refund) - little more than a taxi ride from Chiang Mai !

[kingwillly]

cheeky gits., takie your money but will they give it back?

[torrenova]

cheeky gits., takie your money but will they give it back?

Utter <deleted>.

You can see exactly what you are covered for before you buy the policy. To then throw the dummy out of the pram because you wanted coverage for something you are not covered for seems illogical and childish to me.

The bigger argument, that insurers should not exclude items such as civil unrest from policies remains and I personally am in favour of all inclusive insurance policies in this area. However, the populous is price driven and this insurance is price sold, not coverage, so the people get what the public want; pretty poor insurance but at a cheap price.

[samuiseagull]

The declaration that Suvarnabhumi international airport was fully open prompted the embassies of Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the United States to deliver a joint letter of protest at the unseemly haste in resuming operations before a full safety audit.

Since when has the European Union had an Embassy?

Travel insurance is no different to any form of insurance. They will pull every stroke in the book, and a few that aren't, to avoid paying out.

Yeah, very true mate !! Gone are the days of ever bothering to spend large amounts of hard earned cash on a big expensive insurance policy just so that the money grabbing tossers give you nothing in return. All you need is the medical cover these days. (MONEYSUPERMARKET.COM gives decent longterm offers for medical cover)

[CbrLad]

The declaration that Suvarnabhumi international airport was fully open prompted the embassies of Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the United States to deliver a joint letter of protest at the unseemly haste in resuming operations before a full safety audit.

Since when has the European Union had an Embassy?

Travel insurance is no different to any form of insurance. They will pull every stroke in the book, and a few that aren't, to avoid paying out.

No great fan of insurance companies myself, but in this case it seems pretty clear cut, it was a form of civil disorder which is has not covered by any policy I have ever had.

It always amusses me how when things turn to custard people always start point fingers at Embassies who don't do enough (bearing in mind they mostly cannot do anything anyway) or insurance companies when they won't pay on things that are clearly excluded in their policies. When people travel overseas they need to be aware that things, can and do happen, and if it happens to them then unfortunatly that is the hidden cost of travelling.

[473geo]

I also agree that anyone over a certain age (perhaps 25 ?) who has half a brain would know what the general exclusions were to travel insurance policies. Now if you had an annual business traveller policy or better, then you might find that these exclusions are much reduced in number and scope.

Armed with that knowledge, you would know that you were on your own cost wise and likely responsible for any costs incurred. It is this point which is going to make people avoid Thailand as a tourist destination.

I agree with this, and Quicksilva's points, entirely. Most of us are grown-ups and have to take responsibility for the situations we find ourselves in.

I accept that I was a lone traveller so didn't have the baggage of a whinging family to consider. However, the points are:-

1. The small print has always been there.

2. Some form of travel warning has been in place for Thailand for sometime.

3. Stick to the Costa del Sol if the Far East intimidates you (frankly I would rather face civil unrest in Thailand than the dregs on the Costa del Sol)

4. Think and act for yourself. Don't rely on your own government, your insurer or the Thai government to bail you out - make your own decisions and be prepared to pay for them.

In my case, I took the offer of Gulf Air to reschedule my flight and I re-booked from 1st December to the 9th in the expectation/hope that the airport protest would be over by the King's birthday. As it happened I was right - I enjoyed an additional 8 days in a place that I love to be and 2 of those nights were cost free in a 4 star hotel in Bangkok (thanks to the Thai government's very fair compensation scheme.)

Unlike one of the posters I didn't get a £200 taxi, I took a VIP bus from Buriram to Bangkok for less 500 Baht.

I was lucky that my expectation of what would happen came to fruition. However, I spent the equivalent of one full day researching the alternatives and, if the protest had continued, I would have travelled to Cambobia to get a flight to KL and then onto London. I estimated that it would have cost me £300 net (after China Air refund) - little more than a taxi ride from Chiang Mai !

I too was impressed with Gulf Air - When I called to confirm my flight on the 3rd, clearly it was not going. I asked if Gulf would contact me 2 days prior to a confirmed flight date. I waited in Surin. I was contacted on the 9th confirming my flight on the 11th. No hassle, no extra cost, all be it also an understanding boss. Thank you PAD for my extended vacation. Thank you Gulf Air for your relaxed but vigilent approach to my situation.

[Eff1n2ret]

I too was impressed with Gulf Air - When I called to confirm my flight on the 3rd, clearly it was not going. I asked if Gulf would contact me 2 days prior to a confirmed flight date. I waited in Surin. I was contacted on the 9th confirming my flight on the 11th. No hassle, no extra cost, all be it also an understanding boss. Thank you PAD for my extended vacation. Thank you Gulf Air for your relaxed but vigilent approach to my situation.

Interesting contrast with Qatar airways. Originally due to fly on the 26th Nov. (the first full day of the protest), I phoned them that morning and they re-booked us for Dec 2nd., at which stage they took contact details. When after a few days it was obvious the protesters were in for the long haul I tried phoning for 3 days without success, and they never contacted us. Eventually, on the 2nd we drove from Rayong to their office in Bangkok, and were given a flight out of U Tapao the next day.

I'm not surprised they didn't answer the phone. The office is only small, and they were totally overwhelmed. I must say I was impressed by the staff there, and at BITEC, and at U Tapao, all of whom worked very hard. After getting home I emailed Qatar to compliment them on this, but politely suggesting that they might have made some different arrangements to handle phone calls. They haven't replied. Malaysia Air, Eva and Thai all answered when I was phoning round to sus out alternatives.

Apart from that small niggle, I have no real complaint. As we weren't paying for accommodation, our only real extra cost for an extra unavoidable week in the sunshine was car hire and rail tickets home from Gatwick. I contacted our insurers when it all blew up, but got the same answer as everybody else.