madmitch

kawapower, on 2012-05-20 19:47:47, said:

It has nothing to do with getting pissed. It has everything to do with meeting other TV members without distraction. I am with my wife and kids 24/7. But, they would be bored to death with a TV party. So, like I said, turn them loose at the mall. Believe me they will have a better time.

Yes, it's an odd 'low' season.

One hotelier I know has taken his annual vacation back in Europe, and his poor wife is rushed off her feet with guests.

Twelve Songkran's in and I'm really finding it difficult to enjoy it any more. The balance between fun and outright stupidity is now weighted very heavily against fun.

What Songkran I did see in Bangkok yesterday resembled some sort of aquatic Mad Max. Drunk people standing in the middle of Sukhumvit road, which is very often handles more traffic than a busy UK "A" road. Large swarms of people on bikes in gangs, drunk and covered in that powder. No helmets, obviously, but I did see one guy wearing a snorkel.

And then there's the trucks of people, all drunk. But, of course the drivers have volunteered to stay sober now, haven't they?

Although I spotted a few cops here and there over the past few days, yesterday I could see none.

Call me a grump. I think I'm pretty much through with Songkran's like these now...

ScouseTommy, on 2012-04-06 09:28:40, said:

Wrong on almost every count.With over 600,000 British visitors every year to Thailand it's simply impossible for the embassy to minister to every tourist's minor problems.The rather good current Ambassador - I'm sorry he's going - has made it very clear and humanely what the Embassy can do and what it can't do.More critically the culture of looking to the state to remedy every need is a peculiarly British one, especially among the benefits oriented underclass which is increasingly dominant in the Thailand tourist market and for that matter in the "expatriate community", whatever that absurd concept is meant to mean.Any doubters should take a look at Lower Sukhumvit or Pattaya.I suspect the first reaction of most Australians or Americans is to try to sort their problems out for themselves, rather than running to their Embassy.

givenall, on 2012-03-28 18:16:15, said:

You are confusing a personal insurance contract with a reinsurance contract. Reinsurance policies are risk management tools. They are specifically written and do not cover what a  personal lines policy covers. Did your personal insurance policy cover the peril of flood? I would be surprised if it did as personal residential policies usually do not. If the peril was not insured, that is why only 10% of the loss is covered.   In most countries, flood insurance is the exclusive domain of a specific  government associated fund. Many perils are not insured under a personal policy such as terrorism, flood and in some regions windstorm. That is why there was a terrorism pool  in the UK, a national flood insurance program in the USA,  and nuclear insurance pools around the world.  

A personal insurance contract is a risk transfer. The policy holder  pays someone to accept its risk and the risk is spread out amongst the many. The party  accepting the risk sets a cost for the risk accepted and  says what risks it is willing to accept. This is set out in the policy contract.  As a contracting party, it was your obligation to read the policy and to know what  was covered.  You were not unfairly treated if the peril of flood was not insured.

animatic, on 2012-03-28 19:24:36, said:

If you do not understand how reinsurance works, don't you think it's best if you not say anything?
Reinsurance is placed under a specific contracts. You can look up how  it is structured. You are confusing personal insurance with very clear risk management financial contracts.  

This isn't about trying to get out of paying, but is  most likely tied to how the business interruption indemnity is paid. It's related to the reserves and the accomodations most likely made by the primary insurers, i.e the insurers were going the extra distance for their clients.

The  reinsurance treaties will have been triggered  once the Cat limits were blown. The direct physical damage would have been adjusted. What could not be paid was business interruption, a loss which must be proven. Business Interruption  is most likely placed on a Profits form with a 12 month or longer indemnity period. The insured must prove its loss and with a BI claim it takes time. The insured  would have received a partial payment but still had the bulk of the loss outstanding as the  loss had not  occurred. The  BI policies can be structured on a loss sustained basis or on a true Profits basis. An insurance policy does not pay for unrealized  gains or BI unless its substantiated and the factories therefore had to post their losses.  

The BI losses will be as large or larger than the physical damage portion of the claim. Reserves will have been set up.
in plain language, as the business revenues suffered and additional costs were incurred (Extra Expense, Mitigation of Loss Expense) the BI loss  developed. There will be more losses to come. A Profits based BI coverage pays until the   level of profits is re-established. This is why an insured completes a business interruption calculation sheet for the current  policy term and for the next policy term. The  primary carriers may have adopted generous  payment terms as they are aware that the reserves would  be realized. The indemnity period applies from the the time of the loss, not the policy period. This means that if a policy ran from 1-Dec-2010 to 1-Dec-2011 and the loss occurred 30 Nov-2011,  the indemnity period of 12 months would apply until 30-nov-2012 even though the policy had expired.

Business Interruption isn't a common coverage in Thailand and  it is most likely the  Thai reinsurers doesn't fully understand the underlying ceding insurance  policy's reserving. Perhaps if Thailand allowed a more open  insurance market there wouldn't be such whining.  To date the same allegations have not been made about Japanese insurers and their reinsurance on the tsunami. Munich Re, Swiss Re and  multiple London syndicates were walloped with massive claims.

“Tourists come to Thailand for the beautiful scenery. Nightlife is not their priority,” he said.

A truly amazing ignorance of the desires of so many tourists to his country.