Insurance and being under the influence

[Konini]

I was talking to a friend yesterday and an interesting subject came up in relation to our travel insurance.

We have an annual 365 day travel policy, were with the same company for 6 years and only ever once had to make a claim.

We were in Turkey, my husband stayed in a bath that was far too hot for far too long, got out, fainted, burst his head open and blood was spraying out to the other side of the bathroom. Everything went really well, I phoned reception and told them I needed a doctor and an ambulance - please don't wait for the doctor to order the ambulance, we definitely need one. The ambulance was there within 5 minutes and the doctor about a minute or two behind. We were taken to a very nice, new, expensive looking private hospital. Whilst they rushed him off to do tests and try to stop the bleeding - I made a point of telling him that on no account should he mention he'd been in a red hot bath for 3 and a half hours because it might affect the insurance claim - I stayed with the administrator who had met us at the door to the emergency room and her first question to me had been do you have insurance coverage? I told her we did, but it didn't matter about the formalities, I have a high limit on the credit card I carry for emergencies such as this.

She was really pushing to get the insurance details. I told her if I could use her computer and log onto my Gmail account, I could download a copy of the page of the policy document that contained the policy numbers and dates. She also let me use her phone to contact them the insurance company. I apologised that I hadn't gotten in touch with them to find out if I needed to use a specific doctor or hospital as was stated in the policy document, but it had been an emergency and I just panicked The very nice man on the phone in Australia said not a problem, don't worry about that, just worry about your husband getting better. I told him she wanted something from them to say they were going to cover the claim. I thought this a bit odd as she had printed off a copy of the policy.

The man on the other end of the phone was really soothing an calming and a great help to me. He told me he needed to get a preliminary doctors report and then a decision would be make on if they would cover the costs, something which I should have questioned at the time, but I was really flustered and it kind of went over my head. Only after getting this doctors report would he email them the document they wanted. He transferred me to a nurse who talked me through what had happened and I could hear her typing away in the background making notes. She was equally reassuring and calming, I really can't praise them enough, they were fantastic. Omega if I recall correctly.

The administrator seemed to know what he had wanted without me having to explain it, and just as I got off the phone she walked into the office with said bit of paper. I phoned him back as he had requested and stayed on the phone with him as the administrator faxed the preliminary report to Australia. I didn't think anything more on this, turned all of my attention to my husband who ended up with 24 stitches but an otherwise clean bill of health, xray and CT scan had shown nothing out of the usual, but the doctor had asked if he were taking warfarin because the blood was spurting out so much. Thankfully he remembered not to mention the long, hot bath. We both had a night in hospital and he was discharged the following morning. My mate Mike from the insurance company phoned the hotel and was put through to our room just as a friendly follow up, making sure that everything was OK, and to let me know that they had approved the claim and let the hospital know by return fax (I hadn't known this). Again, this confused me a little, but I'd had a whole night without sleep and I just put it out of my mind.

It occurred to me later that he'd been checking to see if my husband had been drunk or on drugs when he fell. The more I thought about it the more convinced I became - the administrator knowing he the type of report he'd need and knowing it would have to be sent to them before a decision would be made. I am now quite certain that had he been rolling drunk or off his face, we might not have been covered.

Can anyone tell me if my assumptions are correct please?

After that long and detailed background, we can move on to the conversation I was having with my friend. I was having a bit of moan about him riding his bicycle when he'd had a few being no different to riding his motorbike - equally foolhardy but something he would never even think of doing. As the limit on drink driving in Thailand is, I believe but stand to be corrected, 0% alcohol in your blood if you are driving. I'm now thinking that if he were to have a bit of trouble - he wouldn't ride it rolling drunk, only after have one or two cans of beer and he lost his balance or more likely someone ran into him and he were seriously hurt, would our insurance policy cover us? We changed companies last year, because the old one meant that we had to return to Australia exactly every 12 months as you had to be physically in the country when talking out the policy - not renewing the old one, but a new policy every year, and last year we juggled the time of year that we go to Australia and the UK and were away for 18 months and I had to have coverage for the extra 6 months - they gave me a quote which was way more than the cost of the policy for the whole year, so I went online and found a reasonable policy with World Nomads and after getting written confirmation from them that we would be covered for riding a motorbike in compliance with local laws - i.e. having a full motorbike licence as well as an International Driving Permit in the countries where it is necessary to have one.

This has really got me thinking. We took very early retirement and are financially secure with enough to see us living a comfortable lifestyle until we pop our clogs. Our investments are spread between cash, rental properties and blue chip shares, so no risk there. But if one of us were to have a serious accident and the insurance company decided not to cover us, everything we worked so hard for could be wiped out in medical bills.

After the very long preamble, done purposefully so there would be no confusion in the particulars about what I'm asking, my questions are thus;

Am I right in assuming that the preliminary doctors report requested by the insurance company, which was over an hour after he was admitted so enough time for results, that a blood alcohol and or drug test would have been in there and if so that could have changed whether the claim was going to be covered or not?

The other question is if he were to have an accident riding his bike home, or even walking home I suppose, would alcohol in his system affect a claim? It's more particularly the riding his bike bit. I have a cousin in England who was arrested and charged with being drunk in charge of a bicycle. Common sense tells you that you really shouldn't do it regardless of the law. Would riding a bike be classed the same way as riding a motorbike? And what if he were just walking and fell or was knocked over?

Sorry for it being such a long read, but I wanted to make sure everyone was very clear on what I am asking. It's an important one, because as I said it's the only thing that could wipe us out financially.

Thanks in advance for any help with this.

[canopus1969]

Instead of spending so much time writing why did you not read the policy because it will state it will not pay out in those circumstances i.e. intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.

[Konini]

I have read the small print, writing small print used to, a part of my job. I wouldn't dream of coming in and laying out such a detailed scenario without having first read the policy document in full, because the response you gave would have been what I expected. Perhaps I should have mentioned it, my bad. Whilst I'm not obsessed about insurance company's being evil entities, doing everything and whatever they can to get to get out of paying out on a claim, because I know that isn't the case, I just wanted some advice from industry insiders on definitions, which I think is a reasonable request.

Drugs obviously not as it is not a legal activity (although smoking dope is legal in quite a few places now, including 2 states in Australia, so that would raise interesting questions in it's own right, but intoxicated is the small print word that concerns me. Drinking is a legal activity in most countries. When does having a drink or two become legally intoxicated? When driving in Australia, the various state governments set defined amounts that you may drink before becoming intoxicated, otherwise known as over the limit. In Victoria the limit is .05, in some other states it is .08. If I were to go from Victoria to Western Australia, what level would the insurance company deem to be within acceptable boundaries, my home state limit or the state I'm in's limit?

Drink driving is not something either of us would ever do, so that question is more curiosity than anything else, but what about on a bicycle? If it were not against the law in that particular country, how much could you drink before being deemed intoxicated. Zero, my home state's limit, or the limit of the state or other country I'm in? How would that be assessed if there were no law against it at all? If I were not doing anything to break a law, could I indeed have a drink, and if so how many? Not that I ever have or will do it, but my husband does occasionally. Not drunk, but with one or two cans of beer down him.

Something which should have been a separate question in my OP is what if I were walking home and fell badly or a car or motorbike knocked me over? If I were totally sober and not walking in the middle of the road or having done anything to contribute to the accident, I would be covered without any question. What if I'd had a drink? What if I'd had 2? At what point would I be deemed to have overstepped the boundaries and be deemed to be intoxicated? I can't be the only person to have ever asked this question. Going out for a drink when you're on holiday is a pretty normal thing to do. Can I have a drink when I go out without fearing that my insurance will be null and void if some idiot comes up behind me and bops me on the back of the head and steals my bag? Or if a car knocked me over, absolutely no fault on my part, but I've had a drink. Would my claim be rejected? 2 drinks? 3 drinks? Rolling drunk? If I am allowed to drink at all, how and when would the insurance company deem me to be intoxicated therefore contributing to the accident and voiding my claim?

I really think they are reasonable questions.

[stevenl]

In general: alcohol would affect the claim if driving. For other cases, no, it would not.

And: get yourself proper medical insurance.

[madmitch]

You haven't actually stated what the small print says. Does it mention intoxication, drunkenness, drugs, alcohol?

If there is no mention then its highly likely that no claim can be denied unless you are committing an illegal act such as driving or riding a motorcycle whilst over the limit or taking illegal drugs.

Without reading the policy I can't comment further but I too used to write and proofread insurance small print. Exceptionally boring job!

[Konini]

Thank you both for your more helpful responses. We have a very good policy which covers accident and emergency, and self insure for anything that will come up in the future. We have more than sufficient funds in our superannuation account which we don't intend to touch until we're 65 as it will be tax free then, but should either of us need elective procedures rather than accidental which we are fully covered for, our being young(ish) in perfect health and fitness, we self insure.

For anything really major, we would probably go back to Australia where we are legally resident - we still pay tax there so no guilt about going back to get free health care, or would go as a private patient in a public hospital which would leave us a little bit out of pocket but not much because of the way medical expenses are 85% covered by the government when you go private, you only make up the cost of the bed for the nights, medications and make up the balance of the medical fee by paying 15% of it. Over 27 years of being self insured, we have found that doctors are just the same as panel beaters who fix up your car if you have a bingle; when they find out that you are self insured and not covered by private health cover, they charge the scheduled fee so we would be only 15% out of pocket. One time when I went for a procedure, I mentioned cost to the doctor. He told me his fee for that particular operation was $3,400, but not to worry as the insurance company would take care of it. When I told him I wasn't insured he charged the government scheduled fee of $2,150 so I would only be 15% out of pocket. I went for an MRI and it was the same deal when they found out I didn't have private health insurance. My dentist also charged me less because of this. They're just the same as panel beaters, one price for an insurance job, a much lower price for a self-funded job.

As we get older and things start to drop off, we will reconsider and get private cover, although we might have that cover in Australia as we may have to go back if either of us develops a really serious illness requiring long term constant care.

The policy wording is in the General Exclusions. No other mention of it anywhere.

Being under the influence of or addicted to alcohol or a drug, except a drug taken in accordance with the advice of a registered medical practitioner.

Drugs, obviously as they are illegal (smoking dope is legal in some places though, but it seems that it would still render your policy null and void).

For riding a motorbike or driving a car, fair enough and I agree with it as I have a real thing about drink driving. They always tend to take some innocent bystander with them and totally deserve what they get. But riding a bicycle or walking?

I would take this wording to mean that when on holiday we can't go out and have a drink. Not even one. Am I correct in that assumption?

Thanks again for your responses. I think perhaps Mr Grumpy should have not wasted his time writing a condesending and rather rude post.

[madmitch]

Is it a Thai policy? The wording of the exclusion isn't great and it could be a translation if so.

[Konini]

No, World Nomads, I think an international company but I bought the policy from Australia because that's where we are legally resident and lodge our income tax returns etc.

The whole policy is very short and all of i is worded like that. A bit cool and hip kind of vibe coming from them as the Gen Y types suggest, giving it in plain easy to read terms. I really would rather they had the old type of wording; I'm pretty good at the cross referencing to confuse people, such as 'only when it complies with clause 1 ( b ) e not schedule 1 ( b ) e.

The wording is quite ambiguous, which is the reason I came on to the insurance forum hoping for some expert opinion. I just can't believe that I wouldn't be covered if I had 1 single drink, but there's no mention of quantity, just 'influence' which I take as meaning not a glass of champagne to toast the happy couple at a wedding and void your insurance.

Also, I'm only concerned with the major medical and public liability. Delays at airports ec don't even blip on my radar, I've had to have surgery a couple of times whilst in Thailand, as well as a fractured wrist and a funny turn which gave me a night in intensive care at one of the mid level private hospitals.

The costs are so small that by the time you've paid your $100 excess, you'd only be getting maybe $100 back at most, and it's on your record as possible epilepsy candidate or previous head injury which will effect a major claim if you have to make one in the future for a head injury they would say 'you already had a head injury, so well only pay a portion of the amount you would get with no mention of it.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Konini

[JLCrab]

As we get older and things start to drop off, we will reconsider and get private cover, although we might have that cover in Australia as we may have to go back if either of us develops a really serious illness requiring long term constant care.

With a real serious illness you might not be in condition to travel to the airport let alone back to Australia.

[Konini]

.As we get older and things start to drop off, we will reconsider and get private cover, although we might have that cover in Australia as we may have to go back if either of us develops a really serious illness requiring long term constant care.

With a real serious illness you might not be in condition to travel to the airport let alone back to Australia.

Very true, and it's something I am aware of have planned for. We have no pre-existing medical conditions, and a sudden onset of any illness apart from a pandemic is covered under our travel insurance policy, which includes medivac back to Australia should it be necessary. For many of the degenerate type diseases such as Parkinson's or MS, there is a gradual rather than a sudden onset of symptoms.

There are many flights to various cities in Australia every day, Perth is only about 6.5 hours and our home city, Melbourne, less than 9. Business class is rarely full, and being a life member of the Qantas Club I would get priority wait list.

Fortunately we are in a position to be able to pay for medivac ourselves if necessary. We're only 50 and 51 at the moment and in very good health and fitness. We have recently decided to stay in Thailand long term, and I'm currently in talks with our building owner for a 30 year lease. After all is settled we will decide if we should take out a medical policy locally for elective care coverage (non-elective treatment is covered under the travel insurance policy) or self insure as we did for the 20 years we lived in Australia - despite several operations and other procedures, mostly as out-patient we came out miles ahead by paying as we went rather than paying for the level of insurance that would have had me in the standard of private hospital I were in.

I remain concerned - and everyone who has a travel insurance policy should also be - about the wording of the policy, which indicates to me that there is zero tolerance on having even a social drink or glass of wine with your meal.

Slightly off topic and something that doesn't effect us as we don't do it, but does anyone know what the drink driving limit is in Thailand? For some reason I'm thinking zero, but I don't know where that thought came from.

[NanLaew]

I doubt that Worldnomads are the actual insurance carrier. I would look at the policy and see who the actual underwriter is and then look up their general policy. You may get a better deal when it is renewal time too.

Pretty much any and all insurers will use any form of alcohol as an excuse to either reduce or totally decline any claim. There's not much point in trying to nit-pick if it is the Turkish, Thai or Australian definitions of intoxication that will prevail. For arguments sake, I would assume the Norwegian definition of acceptable blood/alcohol content!

As for the bit about, "... I made a point of telling him that on no account should he mention he'd been in a red hot bath for 3 and a half hours because it might affect the insurance claim..." I would be more concerned that concealing a basic fact that did contribute directly to the accident could hamper any related medical intervention or post-trauma medication.

[harrry]

Thank you both for your more helpful responses. We have a very good policy which covers accident and emergency, and self insure for anything that will come up in the future. We have more than sufficient funds in our superannuation account which we don't intend to touch until we're 65 as it will be tax free then, but should either of us need elective procedures rather than accidental which we are fully covered for, our being young(ish) in perfect health and fitness, we self insure.

For anything really major, we would probably go back to Australia where we are legally resident - we still pay tax there so no guilt about going back to get free health care, or would go as a private patient in a public hospital which would leave us a little bit out of pocket but not much because of the way medical expenses are 85% covered by the government when you go private, you only make up the cost of the bed for the nights, medications and make up the balance of the medical fee by paying 15% of it. Over 27 years of being self insured, we have found that doctors are just the same as panel beaters who fix up your car if you have a bingle; when they find out that you are self insured and not covered by private health cover, they charge the scheduled fee so we would be only 15% out of pocket. One time when I went for a procedure, I mentioned cost to the doctor. He told me his fee for that particular operation was $3,400, but not to worry as the insurance company would take care of it. When I told him I wasn't insured he charged the government scheduled fee of $2,150 so I would only be 15% out of pocket. I went for an MRI and it was the same deal when they found out I didn't have private health insurance. My dentist also charged me less because of this. They're just the same as panel beaters, one price for an insurance job, a much lower price for a self-funded job.

As we get older and things start to drop off, we will reconsider and get private cover, although we might have that cover in Australia as we may have to go back if either of us develops a really serious illness requiring long term constant care.

The policy wording is in the General Exclusions. No other mention of it anywhere.

Being under the influence of or addicted to alcohol or a drug, except a drug taken in accordance with the advice of a registered medical practitioner.

Drugs, obviously as they are illegal (smoking dope is legal in some places though, but it seems that it would still render your policy null and void).

For riding a motorbike or driving a car, fair enough and I agree with it as I have a real thing about drink driving. They always tend to take some innocent bystander with them and totally deserve what they get. But riding a bicycle or walking?

I would take this wording to mean that when on holiday we can't go out and have a drink. Not even one. Am I correct in that assumption?

Thanks again for your responses. I think perhaps Mr Grumpy should have not wasted his time writing a condesending and rather rude post.

You may find that you will not be covered by Medicare in Australia for a few months at least after returning.

[Konini]

I doubt that Worldnomads are the actual insurance carrier. I would look at the policy and see who the actual underwriter is and then look up their general policy. You may get a better deal when it is renewal time too.

For arguments sake, I would assume the Norwegian definition of acceptable blood/alcohol content!

As for the bit about, "... I made a point of telling him that on no account should he mention he'd been in a red hot bath for 3 and a half hours because it might affect the insurance claim..." I would be more concerned that concealing a basic fact that did contribute directly to the accident could hamper any related medical intervention or post-trauma medication.

Yes, I did think about that afterwards and realised that we shouldn't have done it, we certainly won't do it again. Our health is more important than the cost of some medical care.

From your wording there I don't think I even have to ask google to know that the Norwegian definition would be zero.

I do find that a bit concerning though. Doesn't affect me so much as I very rarely drink, but your average couple, out for a meal at a nice restaurant outside the resort they are staying in, a standard sized glass of wine with dinner, certainly not drunk, but maybe with the edge taken off just a teensy bit and whatever calamity you want happens to him/her/them on the way back to their hotel. They would have no idea that their insurance policy may not cover them. And really, most people drink a bit more often whilst on holiday than they do at home.

The only wording I can find about the underwriter (Lloyds, I checked before taking out the policy to ensure we weren't with Micky Mouse Insurance Ltd) is

This insurance is underwritten by certain underwriters at Lloyd's (the insurer).

and

Certain underwriters at Lloyd's are responsible for the PDS in this Combined Financial Services Guide and Product Disclosure Statement.

Date prepared: 31 January 2013

Although is our contract not with the company rather than Lloyds? All of the disclosure statements and reference to complaints are covered under Australian law. It's a far more complex question that I could ever have imagined. This is the reason I came here to ask the ​questions was because I needed someone with more experience than the average keyboard warrior to advise me.

Did your comment in the first paragraph mean that we can go directly to Lloyds? I didn't think that was possible. The only reason we went with world nomads is that they didn't require you to be in your home country when taking out the policy as our previous company did, like all the other companies I looked at. They also seem to have a connection with Lonely Planet, although I'm not sure what, perhaps just fee based recommendations.

Thank you for taking the time.

[Konini]

You may find that you will not be covered by Medicare in Australia for a few months at least after returning.

Yes, we've already had a problem with this. We are legally resident and lodge tax return and pay tax in Australia (got a ruling last year), but as far as Medicare are concerned, we are not resident. I checked at the time and was told (verbally, couldn't get it in writing) that as long as we were returning to Australia permanently after a period overseas, we would be covered immediately. We now have it sorted and they don't know that we're out of the country even.

As I said earlier, no feelings of guilt or that we're abusing the system - we are still paying taxes, just as our super fund is.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Konini

[stevenl]

Pretty much any and all insurers will use any form of alcohol as an excuse to either reduce or totally decline any claim.

Nonsense, would depend on the kind of policy and the kind of accident.

I doubt that Worldnomads are the actual insurance carrier. I would look at the policy and see who the actual underwriter is and then look up their general policy.

Totally irrelevant, WorldNomads policy is the only thing that is relevant.

And without checking that complete policy it is impossible to say anything about 'what would happen if ...'.

[madmitch]

Travel insurance may well exclude claims while you are under the influence of alcohol........if they know.

I know a number of people who have had motorcycle accidents, for example, and I know they had been drinking but their insurers paid out. It can depend on the amounts involved and the claims handler; believe it or not insurance companies don't try to deny every claim as it's often not worth the hassle.

I don't know how long you have stayed in Thailand but be careful with travel insurance. It sounds to me that you are living in Thailand and therefore you are not tourists, therefore travel insurance may be invalid. You cannot use travel insurance as a replacement for healthcare coverage!

Below are the conditions that World Nomads apply:

You're not eligible for cover if you:

• have been living overseas at a permanent residential address for more than two years;
• intend to live overseas at a permanent residential address for more than two years;
• will be 70 years old or older on your chosen Start Date or at the time you extend your trip and buy more cover;
• intend to use this policy in place of private health insurance for on-going medical care; or
• don't wish to return to Australia (for example, in the event of a medical repatriation from overseas).

If any of the above conditions apply to you then you could be throwing your money away.

[Konini]

Thanks for that hint. We kind of live here, but don't really - we use it as a base. When we retired 7 years ago, we spent 3 years travelling around like gypsies, we carried what we owned and owned what we carried, drifting from place to place as the fancy took us both here and in Europe. After 3 years, we felt that was becoming a little tiresome as the novelty wore off and we needed a base - our families are in England but we lived in Melbourne for 20 years, and most of our financial business is there as well as lots of friends. We had kept drifting our way back to Chiang Mai, so it made sense to have the base here, half way between our 2 'homes'. We go to Australia for 4 -6 weeks every year and England for at least 2 months every year, and in addition to the 2 months, whilst in England we go off for 3 or 4 10-14 day cheap last minute holidays in Europe, Turkey, North Africa, anywhere really, where ever there's a cheap deal that catches our eye really. My father in law passed away recently, so we'll probably be going back to England twice each year now for my husband to spend more time with his mam. We will have to be careful not to spend more than 89 days in UK or we'll be liable to pay tax there. After Australia and England we return to our base in Chiang Mai to catch our breath for a few weeks before going off again - we've made some very good friends whilst travelling around, and go to Malaysia a couple of times every year (three times this year because of 2 weddings, and for my husband 4 times as he's going to the motorbike racing next month). We also go to Vietnam at least once a year, sometimes twice and catch up with people from Laos, Cambodia and Indonesia, not all of them every year, because we actually run out of time. After all the running around need to go to a beach somewhere for a bit of a holiday! We have dual nationality and go through passports very quickly, juggling them so they fill up pretty evenly. We've still never quite made it to India, Burma or the Philippines, but will one day.

We spend more individual days in Thailand than in any other single country, but it really isn't that many days because we really do spend a lot more time in various other countries combined than in Thailand, and I don't see serviced apartments as a permanent residential address. We have no bills in our name anywhere apart from Australia and England, where we have a rental property. We definitely aren't in Thailand enough days of the year for the Taxation Commissioner in Australia to consider us non-resident (we use a friend's address in Australia for everything legal there, and 'rent' a spare bedroom from her where our bed now lives (we gave it to her when we sold up), as well as various bits and pieces we didn't have the heart to sell or give away, so we are able to quite honestly say we have furniture and other personal and household belongings in the room we rent from her, and we do stay there when we go back to Melbourne). We had a legal ruling earlier this year that given our unusual circumstances, we are to be considered legally resident in Australia, despite spending most of the year away from home, because it is against some international convention on tax evasion to not be a resident of anywhere otherwise all very rich people would just flit from place to place to avoid paying taxes. As such we are liable to lodge annual income tax returns until and unless our circumstances change (that actually suits us at the moment, impossible to explain to anyone not familiar with the way Australia handles tax paid dividends, whereby you have significant deductions which turn into actual refunds if you play clever with making large contributions in you private superannuation accounts - easier to just say it suits us for the time being.

We aren't trying to cheat anyone, this really is the case and if anyone thinks we are they are mistaken. We worked long and hard hours, choosing not to have children so we could retire early and travel, and that's exactly what we're doing. I know that the travel insurance only covers us for accidents and emergencies outside of Australia - we self insure for everything else as we did for all the years we lived in Melbourne, going private and paying as we went which turned out to be a lot less expensive than paying top level medical insurance. In 7 years we've only ever made one claim, when my husband fainted after a hot bath and hit his head, and the sheer volume of stamps in our passports is proof that we never stay in one place for very long and really can't be considered as being resident in Thailand. Next year, we will probably spend more days in England than here anyway.

So all in all, we still don't really have a definite interpretation of how much we are allowed to drink when we go out for dinner, not only in Thailand, but anywhere in the world apart from Australia. I've said previously that we'd never drink and drive, but I'm going to have to ensure that my husband doesn't ride his bicycle either just in case. Probably a good idea anyway. I had just assumed that the insurance company would have a preliminary report which said how much if any alcohol was in your blood and didn't know how much was an acceptable amount. With the wording saying under the influence and not mentioning any reasonable amount or actual numbers, I think we're going to have to assume that it is any amount at all,

There sure would be a lot of holiday makers very unhappy if they knew that was the case.

Thank you again for taking the time.

[stevenl]

Your choice of residence has many consequences, not just tax wise, but also for health and travel insurance.

[Konini]

Your choice of residence has many consequences, not just tax wise, but also for health and travel insurance.

No paragraphs on purpose. See if I can convince you.......

Yes, we thought long and hard, and I was crunching figures for almost a week. We have dual nationality, but the NHS killed my father by way of overworked, tired and uninterested doctors, so we'll never go back to England permanently under any circumstances. I know you should never say never, but we have to be realistic; our mothers' are 79 and 78 respectively, and while a long way from deaths door, neither could be said to be in good health. Apart from our mam's, we have no real need to go back to England. That left us with two choices, disappear under the radar, and we would have been able to do this, continue making sufficient income from our investments to live very comfortably, and not pay income tax because the radar cover is pretty good, or do the right thing and tell the truth to thNe Australian Taxation Office, and that's exactly what we did. Our families are all in England, apart from a rental property in England all of our investments are in Australia, as are many good friends. The health care system in Australia is so far ahead of England it's shameful. We aren't covered by Medicare because by their rules, we are not resident in Australia. All we need to reinstate our cover is to go back to Australia to stay. Simple as that. Some proof is required, a rental agreement, bank statements at your address, utilities bills etc. We rent a room in a house where utilities are included, but our driver licenses, insurance, tax returns, electoral roll, and all manner of other official has been going to that address for years; we were previously renting it for storage because we sold up and started travelling with only what we could carry and always had the option to physically move into it when we eventually returned to Melbourne, which we had always intended to do. We were only on a very, very long holiday, no time limit, just until we got bored with travelling. I find it somewhat disconcerting that we meet the tax office's definition of being resident in Australia, yet we don't meet Medicare's. Whilst we were travelling we decided not to break any laws and declared all of our income to the ATO and paid or have been refunded the requisite amount of money. We make Thailand our base, half way between England and Australia, both ot with we visit for a month or two each year. From Australia we potter around the South Pacific Islands, and from England we potter around mainland Europe. Occasionally the urge to go to South America takes us to Brazil. Many of our trips are launched from either England or Australia, but we really enjoy South East Asia. Using Thailand as a base to go back to where some of the extra things we've collected along the way are kept as well as different clothes which we swap over so we're not wearing the same clothes in every photo's. Just as we use England and Australia to launch ourselves off to various other destinations, Thailand is the ideal location from which to launch ourselves into South East Asia. Permanent residency is very rare in Thailand, I believe only a handful are offered each year, and I'm told you have to have the right contacts and introductions to succeed in obtaining it - anyway, I'm told that the requirements are very high and it is outrageously expensive, so I really can't see us even bothering to apply for it. Why would we? We're only here using it as a base to go to other countries. The stamps are all in our passports. It may be that we spend more days in Thailand than in any other country, but we in no way look at it as being our home, just a convenient base for the time being. Dreadful place, full of the type of people I'd rather not have to mix with if you know what I mean.

So, what's the verdict? Are you going to turn me down for a claim?

[stevenl]

So, what's the verdict? Are you going to turn me down for a claim?

Please use paragraphs to make your texts more legible.

Your base is Thailand. You'd have to check your travel insurance for requirements, I would not be surprised if they require you to live elsewhere from where you claim, so a Thailand claim can easily be denied.

[topt]

OP if you want to be absolutely sure about the residency issue I would recommend you probably should ask your insurer and give them the specifics so there is no doubt in case of a claim.

I was working in China for a number of years but never considered it my "residence" even though I spent more time there than anywhere else. After about 3 years Worldwide Insurance refused to cover me even though I was back in the UK at the time for a trip. My last year of Insurance was with Nomads and I was very clear about what and where I would be with a number of long emails clarifying the position. Their UK office had no issue in accepting me for cover.

[stevenl]

No paragraphs on purpose. See if I can convince you.......

Missed that one.

So you want answers but purposefully try to make it is as difficult as you can.

I'm out of here, this is too much trolling.

[citizen33]

One interesting point is that the new Thai insurance scheme for tourists that TAT has promoted also contains a clause about alcohol.

[NanLaew]

Pretty much any and all insurers will use any form of alcohol as an excuse to either reduce or totally decline any claim.

Nonsense, would depend on the kind of policy and the kind of accident.

I doubt that Worldnomads are the actual insurance carrier. I would look at the policy and see who the actual underwriter is and then look up their general policy.

Totally irrelevant, WorldNomads policy is the only thing that is relevant.

And without checking that complete policy it is impossible to say anything about 'what would happen if ...'.

Ahhh, the perpetual hair-splitter and semantics warrior is back. How nice.

The OP is talking specifically about a health insurance policy. So am I. You have already posted some irrelevancy about alcohol as it relates to car insurance or driving or something totally unrelated to travelers life insurance.

The OP has already said that the policy underwriter is Lloyds. Worldnomads is a broker with a fancy 'front desk' that appeals to international gypsies.

[stevenl]

Pretty much any and all insurers will use any form of alcohol as an excuse to either reduce or totally decline any claim.

Nonsense, would depend on the kind of policy and the kind of accident.

I doubt that Worldnomads are the actual insurance carrier. I would look at the policy and see who the actual underwriter is and then look up their general policy.

Totally irrelevant, WorldNomads policy is the only thing that is relevant.

And without checking that complete policy it is impossible to say anything about 'what would happen if ...'.

Ahhh, the perpetual hair-splitter and semantics warrior is back. How nice.

The OP is talking specifically about a health insurance policy. So am I. You have already posted some irrelevancy about alcohol as it relates to car insurance or driving or something totally unrelated to travelers life insurance.

The OP has already said that the policy underwriter is Lloyds. Worldnomads is a broker with a fancy 'front desk' that appeals to international gypsies.

Policy underwriter is Lloyds on policy and conditions of World Nomads. So other policies of the specific underwriter are totally irrelevant.

In general for most health insurance policies use of alcohol would not be a reason to deny a claim, for travel insurance, what is very much the topic here, it could be.

Again, depends on the exact policies and conditions, a general statement like yours has no bearing at all on reality.

[NanLaew]

Ahhh, the perpetual hair-splitter and semantics warrior is back. How nice.

The OP is talking specifically about a health insurance policy. So am I. You have already posted some irrelevancy about alcohol as it relates to car insurance or driving or something totally unrelated to travelers life insurance.

The OP has already said that the policy underwriter is Lloyds. Worldnomads is a broker with a fancy 'front desk' that appeals to international gypsies.

Policy underwriter is Lloyds on policy and conditions of World Nomads. So other policies of the specific underwriter are totally irrelevant.

In general for most health insurance policies use of alcohol would not be a reason to deny a claim, for travel insurance, what is very much the topic here, it could be.

Again, depends on the exact policies and conditions, a general statement like yours has no bearing at all on reality.

My apologies. The perpetual hair-splitter, semantics and last word warrior is back.

I thought you had already walked on this 'too much trolling' thread?

Edited September 30, 2014 by NanLaew

[stevenl]

Ahhh, the perpetual hair-splitter and semantics warrior is back. How nice.

The OP is talking specifically about a health insurance policy. So am I. You have already posted some irrelevancy about alcohol as it relates to car insurance or driving or something totally unrelated to travelers life insurance.

The OP has already said that the policy underwriter is Lloyds. Worldnomads is a broker with a fancy 'front desk' that appeals to international gypsies.

Policy underwriter is Lloyds on policy and conditions of World Nomads. So other policies of the specific underwriter are totally irrelevant.

In general for most health insurance policies use of alcohol would not be a reason to deny a claim, for travel insurance, what is very much the topic here, it could be.

Again, depends on the exact policies and conditions, a general statement like yours has no bearing at all on reality.

My apologies. The perpetual hair-splitter, semantics and last word warrior is back.

I thought you had already walked on this 'too much trolling' thread?

That was to the OP, but nonsense has to be corrected.

[NanLaew]

Ahhh, the perpetual hair-splitter and semantics warrior is back. How nice.

The OP is talking specifically about a health insurance policy. So am I. You have already posted some irrelevancy about alcohol as it relates to car insurance or driving or something totally unrelated to travelers life insurance.

The OP has already said that the policy underwriter is Lloyds. Worldnomads is a broker with a fancy 'front desk' that appeals to international gypsies.

Policy underwriter is Lloyds on policy and conditions of World Nomads. So other policies of the specific underwriter are totally irrelevant.

In general for most health insurance policies use of alcohol would not be a reason to deny a claim, for travel insurance, what is very much the topic here, it could be.

Again, depends on the exact policies and conditions, a general statement like yours has no bearing at all on reality.

My apologies. The perpetual hair-splitter, semantics and last word warrior is back.

I thought you had already walked on this 'too much trolling' thread?

That was to the OP, but nonsense has to be corrected.

But.... you typed "In general for most health insurance policies..." and then you bite my arse for generalizing?

Word!

Edited October 1, 2014 by NanLaew

[stevenl]

But.... you typed "In general for most health insurance policies..." and then you bite my arse for generalizing?

Word!

If you can't see the difference you're better of not posting about insurance.

And that is also to you my last word here.

[NanLaew]

But.... you typed "In general for most health insurance policies..." and then you bite my arse for generalizing?

Word!

If you can't see the difference you're better of not posting about insurance.

And that is also to you my last word here.

Promise?