Jump to content
Technical Difficulties Read more... ×
BANGKOK 17 December 2018 11:37

mommysboy

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    7,357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,275 Excellent

About mommysboy

  • Rank
    Titanium Member

Recent Profile Visitors

12,539 profile views
  1. I guess it's about the nitty gritty- this is where reality assumes the importance it should have had from the start. The question would have to be specific to a deal. There should be no ambiguity.
  2. I think from an earlier posting it was established that drinking alcohol did not invalidate a claim- but obviously there is reasonableness. Intoxication is another matter, but then again would an intocicated person be able to do a dive? As to the depth? It was midnight so its maybe not so easy to tell. Also, we do know other users were diving in seemingly. There's a big difference between error of judgement and recklessness. The point is the insured does not have to be on best behaviour! And most accidents have some degree of human error.
  3. Imo you've become rather abstracted from reality on this one.
  4. Quite right. As I posted earlier the bar operators were the ones that were operating a bar and allowing access to a swimming pool at night, in itself rather a negligent thing to do. The fact they did it consciously- it was a swimming pool party- fits the definition of reckless. I agree that a sign in the corner makes little difference.
  5. In this instance, they had given false information on the application form, and I think there was a case for invalidating the insurance. Both cases actually show though that it is not a good business decision to deny pay outs unless in extreme circumstances. Basically, you may save in what you pay out, but there could be a huge cost in terms of negative publicity.
  6. That definition is rather nebulous and ill-defined. There usually has to be an element of conscious gross negligence: the legal definition could also be quite different: 'In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessnessmay be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action.'
  7. It doesn't necessarily disrespect it- it's just saying that we have to take a step back and properly work this thing out- a solution could involve cross party agreement over Brexit- it then ceases to be a party pinball game. Both revoking or just leaving take EU out of the equation for the time being, which is not a bad thing. Any negotiated deal with the EU will leave us with the dirty end of the stick.
  8. Whatever the deal, it has to be managed! This is just the Canada deal by different name, surely!
  9. 'I'm not so sure she should be suing the bar (regardless of TiT)... She simply made a mistake, I can't see that its the Bar's fault (or owner of the location of the Pool).' I don't think it's about her making the mistake, as such, we all do and that's the whole point of insurance. And I agree that the insurance company could still be liable in part or full. As regards the pool operators, it is very pertinent that it is Thailand. The law or its interpretation shall we say, may be influenced by other factors. In UK/USA I would say the bar has a basic duty of care to ensure the safety of its guests. Note, they are the ones selling the alcohol, and offering the pool at the dead of night, to seemingly a large number of users. This argument might not go in Thailand though. At the least, the bar would need to provide supervision by a pool attendant, and adequate night lighting.
  10. I wouldn't know how to call this one. Having a drink or two wouldn't invalidate insurance. Imo, the warning sign is likely irrelevant regarding both insurance, and bar liability. Really, she should be suing the bar, but TIT.
  11. I have skin in the game already believe me. If it goes belly up, I'll be retiring on a pittance of a pension. Whatever the exit, it's about organisation, and co-operation. There's no reason why it wouldn't work, and we have to gamble anyway it seems. What would your choice be? Given the choice, I would not gamble and would rather Brexit was put on ice. But Leave won and that needs to be respected too.
  12. Swimming pool. Night. There was a bar. There was a no diving sign. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-46567237
  13. You forgot the sex! No, then again she could have just dived in to the pool having misjudged the depth. We don't know as you say.
  14. I think this policy allows for some alcohol- obviously there are degrees of reasonableness. Ok your opinion, but I think it is just a misadventure.
×