Insurer not have to pay compensation for Bangkok mall burnt: 2010 political violence

[webfact]

2010 POLITICAL VIOLENCE
Insurer not have to pay compensation for mall burnt: Court
Kesinee Taengkhiao
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- The Appeal Court has ruled that AXA Life Insurance does not have to pay compensation for the burning down of Centre One mall in the Victory Monument area in Bangkok during the political riots in May 2010, because the fire stemmed from incited political chaos and terrorism.

In a civil lawsuit, People Plaza Co sued the insurance firm for Bt122.8 million in compensation plus interest, the primary court ruled AXA must pay compensation to People Plaza - Bt108.4 million plus interest of 7.5 per cent per year, so AXA appealed last year. It claimed that the damage to Centre One resulted from the political protest and clashes at over the reclaiming of a protest site and dispersal of a demonstration.

In the verdict read on Monday, the Appeal Court said People Plaza insured the building with AXA from January 16 2010 to January 16, 2011 for a Bt165 million insurance sum. On May 19, 2010, from 4pm to 6pm, 200-300 people gathered in front of the mall and damaged the glass panes to loot shops and burn tables, chairs and goods. Fire fighters came to put out flames the next day. Hence People Plaza asked AXA to pay compensation, but the insurer took the case to court.

The court saw that the mall did have insurance covering all risks except that from political unrest and, although red-shirt leaders declared the demonstration ended several hours before, the arson resulted from the protest and inciting speeches due to the political conflict. The court was not convinced that the mall fire was done by reckless teenagers, motorcycle taxi-men and others who took the opportunity of political chaos to steal things and burn down the place.

The court said that the fire seemed to be done with intention to cause damage to the country, not a theft, and after the fire broke out, firemen were blocked from accessing the place. Some cloth-tying arrows and bullet holes were also found at the scene. The plaintiff's building fire was most likely caused by some protesters who used violence for political gains and wished to intimidate the government and people - which could also be regarded as a terrorist act by definition of the insurance policy, the court said. So, the defendant did not have to be responsible and the lawsuit was thus dismissed, the court ruled.

The plaintiff still has 30 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. This ruling was for civil codes and had nothing to do with criminal lawsuits against the red-shirt leaders for terrorism.


-- The Nation 2013-12-25

[hughben]

Weren't there rumours the fire was an insurance scam at the time?

[Bender]

Axa dont want to pay, because they know either it was the owner of the building (or maybe the army...)

who set the place in fire

[whybother]

Axa dont want to pay, because they know either it was the owner of the building (or maybe the army...)

who set the place in fire

Or maybe it was the red shirts rioting out front of it.

Sent from my phone ...

[Sydebolle]

Well, first you destroy the SMEs business and then you screw them on the insurance. Maybe a good time to get out of business here; Micky Mice are taking over and everyone wonders = what next?

[JRSoul]

Weren't there rumours the fire was an insurance scam at the time?

If there wasn't, you could start one. Good luck with finding mugs to believe it.

[noitom]

This is some English headline to sort out.

[JoeThePoster]

This is some English headline to sort out.

English ?

[noikrit]

Ah yes ..... Those "peaceful" Red Shirt Protestors..........

[Nibbles48]

Wasn't it Jutaporn who incited the political violence in the first place?

Didn't he declare yesterday that protest leaders are ultimately responsible for anything that protesters do??

Looks like they know where to send the bill then.

[bra]

Not saying who is right or wrong in the decision re insurance responsibility in the above post, I think that it would pay everyone to check the fine print on personal, travel, home and contents and business insurance policies. Many may not cover events which occur during acts of insurrection, riot, usurped power etc. The way things are going Thailand could well end up in a situation where insurance companies will not cover.

[BeforeTigers]

Is "political unrest" it's own established separate category?
Is that separate from war?
Is it separate from terrorism?

Pretty slippery terms we're working with here.

[geriatrickid]

The article needs some of its facts clarified.

First off, AXA Thailand, while part of the AXA Group, the French multinational, operates as a distinct Thai entity because of laws that require Thai shareholders etc.

Which insurance unit is it? If it is really the life unit which I doubt, then complaints should be directed to KrungThai Bank, not AXA because Krungthai is the key stakeholder in AXA's Thai life operations. If it was AXA Insurance PCL. then AXA is only a major shareholder and the day to day operations including claims paying decisions are 100% Thai controlled. Key Thai shareholders are the Thai banking group UOB, and TISCO.

AXA is a brand in Thailand, and it's convenient to point a finger at the brand name rather than to acknowledge it was a Thai decision not to pay the claim for the specific reason that terrorism and insurrection is an exclusion. The bigger issue is that had the government not invoked the description,the policy holder could have been paid. In order for the policy exclusion to be used, there had to have been a legal declaration by the local authorities. As an aside, the business community did raise this possibility at the time, and its counsel was ignored. An insurrection is what we see in the south. What occurred in Bangkok, was illegal, it could be described as violent riots, vandalism, assault etc., but it was not an insurrection in the conventional legal sense. The declaration of insurrection was to allow the government to suspend civil liberties and to more easily deploy the army. The end result is that the policy holder suffered.

[whybother]

The article needs some of its facts clarified.

First off, AXA Thailand, while part of the AXA Group, the French multinational, operates as a distinct Thai entity because of laws that require Thai shareholders etc.

Which insurance unit is it? If it is really the life unit which I doubt, then complaints should be directed to KrungThai Bank, not AXA because Krungthai is the key stakeholder in AXA's Thai life operations. If it was AXA Insurance PCL. then AXA is only a major shareholder and the day to day operations including claims paying decisions are 100% Thai controlled. Key Thai shareholders are the Thai banking group UOB, and TISCO.

AXA is a brand in Thailand, and it's convenient to point a finger at the brand name rather than to acknowledge it was a Thai decision not to pay the claim for the specific reason that terrorism and insurrection is an exclusion. The bigger issue is that had the government not invoked the description,the policy holder could have been paid. In order for the policy exclusion to be used, there had to have been a legal declaration by the local authorities. As an aside, the business community did raise this possibility at the time, and its counsel was ignored. An insurrection is what we see in the south. What occurred in Bangkok, was illegal, it could be described as violent riots, vandalism, assault etc., but it was not an insurrection in the conventional legal sense. The declaration of insurrection was to allow the government to suspend civil liberties and to more easily deploy the army. The end result is that the policy holder suffered.

Do you mean it wasn't "political unrest"?

[robblok]

The article needs some of its facts clarified.

First off, AXA Thailand, while part of the AXA Group, the French multinational, operates as a distinct Thai entity because of laws that require Thai shareholders etc.

Which insurance unit is it? If it is really the life unit which I doubt, then complaints should be directed to KrungThai Bank, not AXA because Krungthai is the key stakeholder in AXA's Thai life operations. If it was AXA Insurance PCL. then AXA is only a major shareholder and the day to day operations including claims paying decisions are 100% Thai controlled. Key Thai shareholders are the Thai banking group UOB, and TISCO.

AXA is a brand in Thailand, and it's convenient to point a finger at the brand name rather than to acknowledge it was a Thai decision not to pay the claim for the specific reason that terrorism and insurrection is an exclusion. The bigger issue is that had the government not invoked the description,the policy holder could have been paid. In order for the policy exclusion to be used, there had to have been a legal declaration by the local authorities. As an aside, the business community did raise this possibility at the time, and its counsel was ignored. An insurrection is what we see in the south. What occurred in Bangkok, was illegal, it could be described as violent riots, vandalism, assault etc., but it was not an insurrection in the conventional legal sense. The declaration of insurrection was to allow the government to suspend civil liberties and to more easily deploy the army. The end result is that the policy holder suffered.

Do you mean it wasn't "political unrest"?

He means its normal to see blackskirts with arms and barricades with fires in protest.. funny that I don't see them now.

They called it what it was how inconvenient to the reds that it may be but anyone saw that those were not normal protests. Ad to that the leaders urging people to burn Bangkok.

[madmitch]

The article needs some of its facts clarified.

First off, AXA Thailand, while part of the AXA Group, the French multinational, operates as a distinct Thai entity because of laws that require Thai shareholders etc.

Which insurance unit is it? If it is really the life unit which I doubt, then complaints should be directed to KrungThai Bank, not AXA because Krungthai is the key stakeholder in AXA's Thai life operations. If it was AXA Insurance PCL. then AXA is only a major shareholder and the day to day operations including claims paying decisions are 100% Thai controlled. Key Thai shareholders are the Thai banking group UOB, and TISCO.

AXA is a brand in Thailand, and it's convenient to point a finger at the brand name rather than to acknowledge it was a Thai decision not to pay the claim for the specific reason that terrorism and insurrection is an exclusion. The bigger issue is that had the government not invoked the description,the policy holder could have been paid. In order for the policy exclusion to be used, there had to have been a legal declaration by the local authorities. As an aside, the business community did raise this possibility at the time, and its counsel was ignored. An insurrection is what we see in the south. What occurred in Bangkok, was illegal, it could be described as violent riots, vandalism, assault etc., but it was not an insurrection in the conventional legal sense. The declaration of insurrection was to allow the government to suspend civil liberties and to more easily deploy the army. The end result is that the policy holder suffered.

Some good points, and as is becoming commonplace, some poor non-factual, badly written reporting by The Nation.

We do not know the exact wording of the policy, which would i any case be written in Thai, therefore it is difficult to cast a judgement. That was the Court's job and they have decided in favour of the insurer.

[GeorgeO]

Wasn't it Jutaporn who incited the political violence in the first place?

Didn't he declare yesterday that protest leaders are ultimately responsible for anything that protesters do??

Looks like they know where to send the bill then.

What I find of greater interest is that the Appeals Court has finally ruled that it was an act of terrorism, which for me, means that Arisman, Nattuwat, Jatuporn, Weng, the man in Dubai, and various others who stood on stage encouraging the red mob can finally be charged with inciting terrorism. Wouldn't that appear to be the case...?

[belg]

insurance scams

allways good to collect your fee, but when you have a problem, fix it yourself

[klauskunkel]

Insurer not have to pay compensation for mall burnt: Court

in related news:

It is alleged that Mr. Jatuporn also does not have to pay compensation for the burning of the mall by red shirts, either.

Mr. Jatuporn clarified that his inciting speech to burn down Bangkok at the time was a result of him exercising Thainess and therefore he is protected from all prosecution, past and future.

He feels that he embodies Thai culture and should be declared a "Living National Treasure" with a stipend from tax payer money.

[PJcm]

In most insurance policies: Strikes, riots and civil commotion are exclusions, and the reinsurers noted this and pressured the primary insurance company, although it should be noted that a Full Reinsurance Clause would leave that decision up to the initial insurer AXA

[geriatrickid]

The article needs some of its facts clarified.

First off, AXA Thailand, while part of the AXA Group, the French multinational, operates as a distinct Thai entity because of laws that require Thai shareholders etc.

Which insurance unit is it? If it is really the life unit which I doubt, then complaints should be directed to KrungThai Bank, not AXA because Krungthai is the key stakeholder in AXA's Thai life operations. If it was AXA Insurance PCL. then AXA is only a major shareholder and the day to day operations including claims paying decisions are 100% Thai controlled. Key Thai shareholders are the Thai banking group UOB, and TISCO.

AXA is a brand in Thailand, and it's convenient to point a finger at the brand name rather than to acknowledge it was a Thai decision not to pay the claim for the specific reason that terrorism and insurrection is an exclusion. The bigger issue is that had the government not invoked the description,the policy holder could have been paid. In order for the policy exclusion to be used, there had to have been a legal declaration by the local authorities. As an aside, the business community did raise this possibility at the time, and its counsel was ignored. An insurrection is what we see in the south. What occurred in Bangkok, was illegal, it could be described as violent riots, vandalism, assault etc., but it was not an insurrection in the conventional legal sense. The declaration of insurrection was to allow the government to suspend civil liberties and to more easily deploy the army. The end result is that the policy holder suffered.

Do you mean it wasn't "political unrest"?

Let's put aside politics please. Terrorism and insurrection are standard exclusions under a commercial insurance policy. Some countries have special pools as was the case in the UK, or in the USA with its TRIA. Thailand has a fund to compensate victims of terrorism and has done so in the south.

The protests in Bangkok, were in a specific location. Insurrections are not confined to a small section of a city. I think we can all agree that some of the acts that occurred were illegal, even criminal and that the threshold for the perils of arson, malicious mischief, vandalism, riot and general fire were satisfied. These perils are insurable. Whether or not the events leading up to the fire can be called terrorism or likewise is questionable. I'm talking about the insurance policy definitions and parameters. When there were massive riots in London not too long ago protesting student fees, significant damage was caused. Some UK cities saw large parts of the city burnt to the ground. Far more people were running wild, and yet, it was not considered an "insurrection". When the G20/G8 meetings are held and protester go amuck, no one calls it insurrection. it is political unrest and it causes significant property damage.

Not labeling the events an insurrection or terrorism does not deny that there was wrongdoing, nor is it a whitewash. Thailand has political unrest every day. Whether it is farmers protesting prices, or tuk tuk drivers blocking roads on Phuket, or loggers fighting with the forest service in the north. These can often be violent events and are political unrest events.. They are not called terrorism or insurrection. The use of a broad brush label by the government for the Bangkok protests was inappropriate and was done for the benefit of the government of the day. Had the government not been so quick to label the event, the fire victims would have had an easier time collecting.

By the same token, the large protests in Bangkok are political unrest. They involve criminal acts when buildings are occupied or government officials work is interfered with. Suthep might be an insurrectionist, but the protests are neither an insurrection nor terrorism.

[geriatrickid]

insurance scams

allways good to collect your fee, but when you have a problem, fix it yourself

Is that so? Didn't AXA paid out large sums and take a loss on the floods? Where were you when the insurer was respecting its contract of insurance and paying large claims?

An insurance policy is a legal contract. It is up to an insured to prove its loss. The people who usually whinge and complain about insurance settlements are usually the people who cannot substantiate their alleged loss or who want a hand out. The insurer in this case has interpreted the policy in accordance with the contract language. The fire victim, should be asking the former government of Abhisit for assistance since it was that government decision, a precedent setting one at that, which has resulted in the denial of coverage.

[robblok]

insurance scams

allways good to collect your fee, but when you have a problem, fix it yourself

Is that so? Didn't AXA paid out large sums and take a loss on the floods? Where were you when the insurer was respecting its contract of insurance and paying large claims?

An insurance policy is a legal contract. It is up to an insured to prove its loss. The people who usually whinge and complain about insurance settlements are usually the people who cannot substantiate their alleged loss or who want a hand out. The insurer in this case has interpreted the policy in accordance with the contract language. The fire victim, should be asking the former government of Abhisit for assistance since it was that government decision, a precedent setting one at that, which has resulted in the denial of coverage.

Actually they should go after the red leaders who told their thugs to burn BKK. Seems far more logical they are the ones burning nobody else.

[JRSoul]

insurance scams

allways good to collect your fee, but when you have a problem, fix it yourself

Is that so? Didn't AXA paid out large sums and take a loss on the floods? Where were you when the insurer was respecting its contract of insurance and paying large claims?

An insurance policy is a legal contract. It is up to an insured to prove its loss. The people who usually whinge and complain about insurance settlements are usually the people who cannot substantiate their alleged loss or who want a hand out. The insurer in this case has interpreted the policy in accordance with the contract language. The fire victim, should be asking the former government of Abhisit for assistance since it was that government decision, a precedent setting one at that, which has resulted in the denial of coverage.

So the armed wing of Thaksin's current party come to town with the stated aim of overthrowing the legitimate government or burning the city, and it's all the Democrats fault for calling it what it was? Stick to the red line, we done nothing wrong.

[JRSoul]

insurance scams

allways good to collect your fee, but when you have a problem, fix it yourself

Is that so? Didn't AXA paid out large sums and take a loss on the floods? Where were you when the insurer was respecting its contract of insurance and paying large claims?

An insurance policy is a legal contract. It is up to an insured to prove its loss. The people who usually whinge and complain about insurance settlements are usually the people who cannot substantiate their alleged loss or who want a hand out. The insurer in this case has interpreted the policy in accordance with the contract language. The fire victim, should be asking the former government of Abhisit for assistance since it was that government decision, a precedent setting one at that, which has resulted in the denial of coverage.

Actually they should go after the red leaders who told their thugs to burn BKK. Seems far more logical they are the ones burning nobody else.

you don't blame the monkey if you don't like the organ grinder's tune.

[Scamper]

The calling of the burning of Bangkok by Arisman and Nattuwut - they couldn't be somehow connected, could they ?

[tingtongteesood]

Wasn't it Jutaporn who incited the political violence in the first place?

Didn't he declare yesterday that protest leaders are ultimately responsible for anything that protesters do??

Looks like they know where to send the bill then.

RIGHT ON ! The people who incited the riots were backed by the Dubai fugitive so they have never been brought to book. Karma is a bitch, I can't wait for the day when the tide has turned and they must pay for their crimes...

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

Wasn't it Jutaporn who incited the political violence in the first place?

Didn't he declare yesterday that protest leaders are ultimately responsible for anything that protesters do??

Looks like they know where to send the bill then.

What I find of greater interest is that the Appeals Court has finally ruled that it was an act of terrorism, which for me, means that Arisman, Nattuwat, Jatuporn, Weng, the man in Dubai, and various others who stood on stage encouraging the red mob can finally be charged with inciting terrorism. Wouldn't that appear to be the case...?

Arisaman, Natthawut, Weng, Thaksin, and several others have all been previously charged with inciting terrorism...three years ago.

Only Thaksin no longer faces trial after his Attorney-General dropped the charges last October.

[stevenl]

The article needs some of its facts clarified.

First off, AXA Thailand, while part of the AXA Group, the French multinational, operates as a distinct Thai entity because of laws that require Thai shareholders etc.

Which insurance unit is it? If it is really the life unit which I doubt, then complaints should be directed to KrungThai Bank, not AXA because Krungthai is the key stakeholder in AXA's Thai life operations. If it was AXA Insurance PCL. then AXA is only a major shareholder and the day to day operations including claims paying decisions are 100% Thai controlled. Key Thai shareholders are the Thai banking group UOB, and TISCO.

AXA is a brand in Thailand, and it's convenient to point a finger at the brand name rather than to acknowledge it was a Thai decision not to pay the claim for the specific reason that terrorism and insurrection is an exclusion. The bigger issue is that had the government not invoked the description,the policy holder could have been paid. In order for the policy exclusion to be used, there had to have been a legal declaration by the local authorities. As an aside, the business community did raise this possibility at the time, and its counsel was ignored. An insurrection is what we see in the south. What occurred in Bangkok, was illegal, it could be described as violent riots, vandalism, assault etc., but it was not an insurrection in the conventional legal sense. The declaration of insurrection was to allow the government to suspend civil liberties and to more easily deploy the army. The end result is that the policy holder suffered.

Do you mean it wasn't "political unrest"?

Let's put aside politics please. Terrorism and insurrection are standard exclusions under a commercial insurance policy. Some countries have special pools as was the case in the UK, or in the USA with its TRIA. Thailand has a fund to compensate victims of terrorism and has done so in the south.

The protests in Bangkok, were in a specific location. Insurrections are not confined to a small section of a city. I think we can all agree that some of the acts that occurred were illegal, even criminal and that the threshold for the perils of arson, malicious mischief, vandalism, riot and general fire were satisfied. These perils are insurable. Whether or not the events leading up to the fire can be called terrorism or likewise is questionable. I'm talking about the insurance policy definitions and parameters. When there were massive riots in London not too long ago protesting student fees, significant damage was caused. Some UK cities saw large parts of the city burnt to the ground. Far more people were running wild, and yet, it was not considered an "insurrection". When the G20/G8 meetings are held and protester go amuck, no one calls it insurrection. it is political unrest and it causes significant property damage.

Not labeling the events an insurrection or terrorism does not deny that there was wrongdoing, nor is it a whitewash. Thailand has political unrest every day. Whether it is farmers protesting prices, or tuk tuk drivers blocking roads on Phuket, or loggers fighting with the forest service in the north. These can often be violent events and are political unrest events.. They are not called terrorism or insurrection. The use of a broad brush label by the government for the Bangkok protests was inappropriate and was done for the benefit of the government of the day. Had the government not been so quick to label the event, the fire victims would have had an easier time collecting.

By the same token, the large protests in Bangkok are political unrest. They involve criminal acts when buildings are occupied or government officials work is interfered with. Suthep might be an insurrectionist, but the protests are neither an insurrection nor terrorism.

I don't see 'insurrection' mentioned anywhere in the article, let alone as grounds for denial?

Strikes, riots and the like are in many policies excluded, and this would easily fall under a riot. To me this denial makes sense, the policy would be necessary to confirm this, but you politicising this makes no sense.

[geriatrickid]

I don't see 'insurrection' mentioned anywhere in the article, let alone as grounds for denial?

Strikes, riots and the like are in many policies excluded, and this would easily fall under a riot. To me this denial makes sense, the policy would be necessary to confirm this, but you politicising this makes no sense.

The policy was an "all risk" subject to named exclusions contract. riot, malicious mischief and vandalism are covered under the all risks form. War, insurrection and terrorism are named exclusions. The policy wording was one of the broader forms used in Thailand.