Travel Insurance Fails As Phuket Tourist Faces Bt600k Medical Bill

[cdmtdm]

Statements,counter statements, petty squabbles... It would be good if people would keep unqualified opinions to themselves and only comment if they have something constructive to say. That way, the Thai Visa site might do what it was originally intended for, to inform people.

yes such as your useless statement

[stevenl]

nd

Am i missing something here... Why does he pay the bill if a van hit him??? surely he should pay nothing as not at fault

You've got to be kidding, this is Thailand not the UK, if a Thai is in an accident with a farang, he is never to blame, that's if they can ever find him. I drive a suv, yet I'm terrified of being involved in a accident involving a Thai,automatically I will be in the wrong,

OK, now back to the truth please in stead of urban myths.

[simple1]

I have read all the posts people are commenting about why? Insurance companies do not pay.

It is the sole directive of any insurance company to find out reason why NOT to pay first - it’s not about the person themselves - the insurance companies will spend literally ten’s of thousands or substantially more depending on the potential pay-out to avoid debits to the companies accounts across the entire organizations coverage spectrum whether its travel, auto, home or otherwise.

If they can con a person into believing they are not liable - they will.

In this case if the insurance company sold a product represented as "Full Coverage" it would infer the insurance company would pay for "hit and run" and/or “Uninsured” in the most obvious sense of drivers in Thailand fleeing the scene of any accident - no matter how large or small - which is so commonplace.

If this accident was not this man’s fault – not matter if he was on a motorcycle or not – the insurance company should pay – it’s like being struck by a falling rock – no matter who’s fault the rock was falling – the insurance company has represented the policy to be full coverage – to cover any and all accidents no matter what the cause.

The fact that they misled this individual for "full coverage" but excluded even 1 shred of coverage that would contradict their representation of "Full Coverage" in the most literal sense - this is quite disturbing and would be viewed the same by any court of law.

I think I would be safe to say the family should hire legal representation and sue the insurance company for fraudulent practice and neglect of execution of their contractual agreement for financial support of medical need.

This should be easy enough to prove the company representation of “Full Coverage Policy” during the sale of the policy and then subsequent failure to pay-out when it was required for seriously needed medical care.

It would be nice if any insurance professionals were to read this thread of discussions would jump into this conversation and elaborate with real facts and methodology of insurance company practices – but I think that would not happen because they would be divulging trade secrets they do not want their potential customers to know about.

I have had only a few experiences with insurance company pay-outs of friends and family – and on all cases they went into many areas of blood testing and other means to try and discredit or absolve themselves of any pay-outs - even when it was the other persons fault and the policy clearly stated uninsured and full coverage.

I have even had the insurance company “share” the pay-out with the other insurance company 50/50 making a full claim with both parties and collecting deductibles from both parties involved thus reducing their pay-out.

Sorry, retail Comprehensive Insurance does not cover all eventualities. Many, if not all insurance policies for travel insurance to Thailand exclude motorbike/moped insurance, unless you pay an extra premium. it's not a secret as it is disclosed in the policy. The family will not be able to sue unless they took out the extra insurance.

[phl]

I just re-read the newspaper article and the injured party was traveling with his company boss. You would think that his employer would cover his medical expenses and sort out financial matters later.

Why would someone's boss cover his medical expenses? Don't understand.

Actually, you know simple1 may have a very good point.

If he was travelling with the boss and it was "part" of the job, it could easily be covered under work cover(Australian employee insurance)

Because employees are NOT only covered while at work, but also on the way to and from, as well as work related trips.

IF someone knows the family or knows how to get in touch with them, it might be good idea to pass this info and see what can be done

[sirchai]

According to the support group’s Facebook page, as of this morning just over NZ$2,500 had been raised.

I've seen too many foreigners in this country who -obviously- never drove one before. If the guy had no International driving permit allowing him to drive motorcycles, the insurance wouldn't have to pay the bills.

It's that easy.Does he have a license to drive motorcycles in Thailand?

Edited July 7, 2012 by sirchai

[LivinginKata]

off topic/inflammatory post removed.

[phl]

According to the support group’s Facebook page, as of this morning just over NZ$2,500 had been raised.

I've seen too many foreigners in this country who -obviously- never drove one before. If the guy had no International driving permit allowing him to drive motorcycles, the insurance wouldn't have to pay the bills.

It's that easy.Does he have a license to drive motorcycles in Thailand?

I think property and health are different issues.

If one does not have a license but rides a bike and has insurance,in the case of accident, insurance will refuse to pay because no drivers license

But not sure how it works it terms of health

[pepi2005]

So which insurance was it ?

The name is not mentioned anywhere in the article ... would be interesting.

[SOTIRIOS]

...what about the taxi van's insurance company???????????????????

[nontabury]

I just re-read the newspaper article and the injured party was traveling with his company boss. You would think that his employer would cover his medical expenses and sort out financial matters later.

1/ Why

2/ You are like most Thai's, you assume that all farangs have plenty of money, maybe his boss is not the CEO of some

large international company, maybe he's just a small shop keeper, who has come on holiday with his one employee.

[somtampet]

Why are they so shocked he isn't covered for a motorbike I don't get it, all insurance policys exclude motorbikes and most extreme sports which need additional payment. I know people who have paid the bike cover and mistakenly believe they will be covered even though they do not have a valid bike licence.

+1

[simple1]

I just re-read the newspaper article and the injured party was traveling with his company boss. You would think that his employer would cover his medical expenses and sort out financial matters later.

1/ Why

2/ You are like most Thai's, you assume that all farangs have plenty of money, maybe his boss is not the CEO of some

large international company, maybe he's just a small shop keeper, who has come on holiday with his one employee.

Why not read the thread and do some basic research prior to posting such a comment. No I am not Thai, I am Australian living in Thailand. Australian federal law covers employees injured whilst working or during work related travel whether an SME/corporate or government entity. As already stated in this thread, obviously will not apply if on private holiday with manager.

Edited July 7, 2012 by simple1

[nontabury]

nd

Am i missing something here... Why does he pay the bill if a van hit him??? surely he should pay nothing as not at fault

You've got to be kidding, this is Thailand not the UK, if a Thai is in an accident with a farang, he is never to blame, that's if they can ever find him. I drive a suv, yet I'm terrified of being involved in a accident involving a Thai,automatically I will be in the wrong,

OK, now back to the truth please in stead of urban myths.

'No' this is not a urban myth, I may have been wrong to have used the word never but in all my years here I personally have never come across a Thai being declared guilty in a road accident. I do however know of instances were the Thai was 100% in the wrong, but still the farang was pressurised into paying up,

[nontabury]

I just re-read the newspaper article and the injured party was traveling with his company boss. You would think that his employer would cover his medical expenses and sort out financial matters later.

1/ Why

2/ You are like most Thai's, you assume that all farangs have plenty of money, maybe his boss is not the CEO of some

large international company, maybe he's just a small shop keeper, who has come on holiday with his one employee.

Why not read the thread and do some basic research prior to posting such a comment. No I am not Thai, I am Australian living in Thailand. Australian federal law covers employees injured whilst working or during work related travel whether an SME/corporate or government entity. As already stated in this thread, obviously will not apply if on private holiday with manager.

I did not mean that you are Thai, what I meant is that you are thinking like a Thai.

I was replying to your first post.Perhaps you should re-read it.

[simple1]

I just re-read the newspaper article and the injured party was traveling with his company boss. You would think that his employer would cover his medical expenses and sort out financial matters later.

1/ Why

2/ You are like most Thai's, you assume that all farangs have plenty of money, maybe his boss is not the CEO of some

large international company, maybe he's just a small shop keeper, who has come on holiday with his one employee.

Why not read the thread and do some basic research prior to posting such a comment. No I am not Thai, I am Australian living in Thailand. Australian federal law covers employees injured whilst working or during work related travel whether an SME/corporate or government entity. As already stated in this thread, obviously will not apply if on private holiday with manager.

I did not mean that you are Thai, what I meant is that you are thinking like a Thai.

I was replying to your first post.Perhaps you should re-read it.

As I said read the thread prior to posting and you would have had your answer

[BazilFox]

“I understand a contract is a contract, but how you word it is critical. I have never been to Thailand but everyone knows motorbike accidents are common in Thailand. My first impression when you say ‘Thailand’ is motorbikes all jostling with each other to get in front.

Personally the majority of people think PROSTITUTES when you talk about Thailand.

Sorry to hear about this, what about taking a loan out against the family home?

Did he have a motorbike license in New Zealand? Does he have a motorbike license in Thailand, if not then the insurance would be void anyway because he is breaking the law, I see the family are trying to justify the funding by tourists and ex pats here, but no license then no ride motorbike.

Edited July 7, 2012 by BazilFox

[phl]

“I understand a contract is a contract, but how you word it is critical. I have never been to Thailand but everyone knows motorbike accidents are common in Thailand. My first impression when you say ‘Thailand’ is motorbikes all jostling with each other to get in front.

Personally the majority of people think PROSTITUTES when you talk about Thailand.

Sorry to hear about this, what about taking a loan out against the family home?

Did he have a motorbike license in New Zealand? Does he have a motorbike license in Thailand, if not then the insurance would be void anyway because he is breaking the law, I see the family are trying to justify the funding by tourists and ex pats here, but no license then no ride motorbike.

Really? most people think about prostitutes when you talk about Thailand?

How many people have you spoken to to make a statement that MOST?

[rodentwarrior]

Whenever I mentioned to friends in UK that I was living in Siam, they usually mentioned inexpensive lifestyle, sexual tolerance and ladyboys, prostitution, counterfeit goods and wonderful beaches.

Never did anyone ever mention motorbikes!

[phl]

Whenever I mentioned to friends in UK that I was living in Siam, they usually mentioned inexpensive lifestyle, sexual tolerance and ladyboys, prostitution, counterfeit goods and wonderful beaches.

Never did anyone ever mention motorbikes!

so perhaps the statement should be MOST of my friends, NOT most people

[Konini]

Riding a motor bike is not a sport, unless on a track offroad, it is a means of transport.

Motorcross or off-road riding is one of the things specifically excluded in the list of the " few other silly things that we wouldn't consider doing", although I have to admit my husband did a 5 day trip in Cambodia a few years ago - fully knowing the risk that he was taking. It was a road-registered big trail bike, and a lot of the riding was on-road (some of the roads in rural Cambodia would be classified as a good off-road track back home) and some of it was off-road. He is an experienced road and motorcross rider, and he knew the risks with the insurance; I didn't agree with him taking the risk and he couldn't walk properly for a week when he got back, but as nothing untoward happened the risk was worth the smile on his face when he had finished. I doubt very much that he'll do it again as we are growing more conservative by the year.

Please read your small print.

[Konini]

The large number of motorbike accidents in Thailand involving foreigners, is precisely why the out of the box insurance cover excludes coverage.

It should be against the law in any country or line of business to use small print, It is a way of trying to dupe the customer. In this case, the insurance company had FULL COVERAGE on it's policy, then contradicted itself. They should be made to pay out.

In Australia the legal requirement is on the buyer to read the PDS. However some posts have questioned why you would spend the time to read the PDS! So you can go around and around, but will not change buyer responsibility. Even with "Full Coverage" there will still be exclusions. Simple example, driving without a license, DUI etc (not saying it's the case in this incident)

As someone who use to write small print, trust me when I say that it is a way to protect the interests of the corporation, mainly by confusion. I worked for one of the first Internet Service Providers in Australia; no web browsing, that came later. We only had Unix command line email and newsgroups. As this internet thingie was so new fangled, we had no way of knowing what action an individual or the government could possibly take against us. I drew up a long, boring contract (refer appendix 1((ii) and other such confusers) which not only gave us total immunity to everything, but also held the user responsible for anything any other user of our system had done. I was the only person - both on the team and the users - who refused to sign the contract. I knew how much I would be signing away.

Over the course of 12 years, I only ever had 3 people phone and question the conditions, and after talking to me 2 of the 3 signed it. The other went elsewhere, but I told him he would find the big companies which had by then got in on the act would have professional lawyers not programmers with a good administration background to write the small print, so he probably would find even worse. That's 3 out of more than 25,000. Morally, I'm not particularly proud of doing it, although I have to take pride in the fact that I did what I was paid to do and protected our (non-profit) organisation from any legal action of any kind from any person or government.

Since doing that, I have never signed anything without reading very carefully and looking for the catch. People get very impatient with me because I won't just sign here, here and here. Perfect example - we're currently on holiday in Turkey and my husband fell in the bathroom last week, ended up in hospital for a CT scan and emerged the next morning with 10 stitches in his head. The hospital workers put lots of papers in front of me to sign (thankfully in English). I refused to sign one - giving them the authority to perform surgery. The wording wasn't specific to the wound/reason for which he was admitted. If I'd signed that, they could quite literally have taken out his appendix. Doubtful that they would have, but had I signed they had my full permission to do so if they chose to.

One other thing on medical if not specifically travel insurance. The hospital wanted a case reference number from the insurance company. The insurance company wanted a copy of the interim medical report before deciding if he was covered and issue a case reference number. The interim medical report, which I insisted on seeing, showed results of the blood test they had taken on arrival. It was a brief description of the wound and action taken and clearly stated no alcohol or drugs in his system. If there had been, I'm quite sure there would be a way of proving that he had contributed to the accident, and only partial payment made to us. It's been almost a year since I read it, but I do remember some reference to contributory action in the policy, although without reading all 12 pages of the tiny font again I can't remember exactly. If he had been rolling drunk, I have no doubt that the partial payment would have been substantially less than if he'd been under the usual drink driving level.

Small print exists to protect companies from paying out. If you sign something without reading it properly, you have no one to blame but yourself. Of course, that leads to social issues such as the less educated, who would have no chance of understanding all of those (purposefully) long words, but that's another argument for another day.

Read the small print.

[Nigel1500]

All he had to do was tick the box on the application form. My brother came over with his family last October. Ticking the box on the CoverMore insurance policy cost hime and extra $60 for 2 adults and 3 children. For a single I'm sure it would only have been $20-25 extra.

I'm amazed at what people will do to save a few bucks.

Still, I really feel for the guy. It seems like he was an innocent victim in this. I hope for his speedy and economical recovery.

[CCFC1]

Insurance companies are the biggest scam artists in the world.

And, your point is . . . ?

His point is that insurance companies are the biggest scam artists in the world. Perfectly clear to me.

Clear to me too. Biggest fraudsters around!

[cdmtdm]

“I understand a contract is a contract, but how you word it is critical. I have never been to Thailand but everyone knows motorbike accidents are common in Thailand. My first impression when you say ‘Thailand’ is motorbikes all jostling with each other to get in front.

Personally the majority of people think PROSTITUTES when you talk about Thailand.

Sorry to hear about this, what about taking a loan out against the family home?

Did he have a motorbike license in New Zealand? Does he have a motorbike license in Thailand, if not then the insurance would be void anyway because he is breaking the law, I see the family are trying to justify the funding by tourists and ex pats here, but no license then no ride motorbike.

this has to be one of the most idiotic posts of all time ....My first impression when you say ‘Thailand’ is motorbikes all jostling with each other to get in front.

then this one ....Personally the majority of people think PROSTITUTES when you talk about Thailand.

you are a waste of skin fella ...

[g00dgirl]

Insurance companies are the biggest scam artists in the world.

Have to agree, same for Thai travel insurance, I was left with a 1000 Euro bill once after the LMG Pacific Diamond travel insurance did not pay.

[PETERTHEEATER]

In the 'EXCLUSIONS' paragraph of a life Insurance policy that I once had was the statement 'Mountaineering requiring the use of ropes'

I wrote to them stating that I intended to free-climb the north face of the Eiger in January and asked them to confirm that I would be covered. A confused response included an amended policy excluding mountaineering entirely

[crazydrummerpauly]

Insurance companies are the biggest scam artists in the world.

Yep - basically gamblers who quit the poker-table at high speed with all the money when they lose.

[ihmmrs]

In the 'EXCLUSIONS' paragraph of a life Insurance policy that I once had was the statement 'Mountaineering requiring the use of ropes'

I wrote to them stating that I intended to free-climb the north face of the Eiger in January and asked them to confirm that I would be covered. A confused response included an amended policy excluding mountaineering entirely

[impulse]

Leaving out for a few minutes the details of this case.

I'm curious if it's possible for a tourist to ride a motorcycle in Thailand legally, and if not- would any insurance policy ever written cover injuries suffered by myself or my passenger for a motorcycle accident if I did not have a proper license to ride it?

I'm in the process of getting a license to ride the scooter I bought last week and it seems that my license from back home isn't adequate, even with an International Driving Permit. It also seems that I'll be required to provide documents that I doubt any tourists would be able to produce- to even apply for the license.

And if it's not legal for a tourist to operate a motorcycle, is it legal to rent one to them?

Perhaps tourists reading this thread will think twice about casually taking off on a rented scooter...

[PoorSucker]

Normal European travel insurance cover riding a motorbike but only up to 50 cc.