It's all very well for Tourism and Sports Minister Kobkarn Wattanavrangkul to say International tourists can be assured of their safety and security while staying in Thailand. Perhaps he does not understand that these International tourists cannot get travel insurance for Thailand and most sensible people will not travel here without insurance. They will simply follow the advice of their travel agent and choose another country.

Posted by Pete on November 6, 2014 07:52

Special on at Phuket airport last week. Only got charged 50 baht to go through express lane.

Posted by Steve on November 6, 2014 09:56

@pete you have a very valid point. A great many people travelling to Thailand at the moment have year round insurance however they do not realize it is invalid in Thailand. The lifting of martial law immediately is what is needed but the Government are just to scared to do it.

Posted by Phuket Saviour on November 6, 2014 10:51

It seems that the issue with general travel insurance not covering the Kingdom at the moment because of martial is merely a myth, or at least it varies greatly by market .

Egypt has been continuously under martial law since 1967, still huge number of tourists flocked there, incl.from UK and other markets where supposedly there are now insurers have problems with martial law here.
Never heard that global travel insurance policy is not valid in Egypt at that time,and few known to me claims were paid in full.

Drummond mentioned today a story of one British girl that was mistreated by NatWest in payment of a claim originated in Thailand, but NatWest simply paid too less, didn't rejected effective cover because of martial law.

Out of curiosity just contacted 2 insurance companies in Europe:
- both told me that coverage in Thailand is valid; martial law doesn't affect it; they only exclude some certain markets like Somali territory etc., Thailand is not in the list; travel to USA bears extra premium; would there will be some war-like event on the basis of martial law, then these losses are not covered.
I asked where they reinsure their risks, both claimed the same large global reinsurer based Germany.
"small print" , that I of course have read says the same that only those losses are excluded that are themselves are consequences of war, civil disobedience etc.Actually it means that if one get injured in protests , it is not covered, and similar situations.
So it is not blanco exclusion of coverage of countries under martial law.

What is not covered :any non-scheduled water transport (so any trip by speedboat or yacht is not covered, and regular ferries like to PhiPhi is still a grey zone); snorkeling, any diving, riding elephant, riding a horse, non-licensed taxi; parasailing , paragliding etc.; any sport; jet-ski etc. To get this covered you have to pay higher premium, 1.5-10X of regular one, it can be attributed also only to certain dates.


I also checked provided with American Express card an insurance policy's small print:
there is no exclusion of martial law; snorkeling, non-technical diving,trips by yachts&boats , gym and other usual recreational sports are covered, but then you should pay your whole trip with AmEx card to have such coverage.

I assume that on those markets where are some insurers have martial law clause, there is a sufficient choice of others insurers, who don't have problem with martial law, so people need to read "small font".
I personally always read insurance general conditions, but most people,especially those most vulnerable , not enough experienced travellers, they don't, so MFAs advisories in respect of Thailand to check coverage whether it excludes coverage of martial law, is a proper advise, but it seems that there is no reason tell that impact of insurer that provides no coverage during martial law is of significance.
That panic sounds like Red Shirts inspired sabotage of reforms :))

Posted by Sue on November 6, 2014 16:53

For clarity, here is an extract ofTerms and Conditions of one insurance company mentioned above , in regard what is excluded from coverage : only those losses that are attributable to martial law itself, but not at all that all losses that took a place on a territory where is a martial law is in place, are excluded:

7.1. Unless the insurance contract stipulates otherwise, the Insurer shall not pay out the insurance indemnity if the occurrence of the insured risk is directly or indirectly caused by:

7.1.2. war, invasion, a hostile act by a foreign country, military operations or operations considered as such (with or without declaring war); civil war, rioting, a strike, a revolt, disturbances, a revolution, riots by military or usurped authorities, a state of war or depredations or looting related thereto, violence, vandalism, sabotage; a strike, lockout, public order disturbance to the extent considered as a revolt or riot; property confiscation, nationalisation, alienation, requisition, destruc- tion or disposal, if it is caused or sanctioned legally or actually authorised by a state authority irrespective of whether it is legal or not; other political risks, as well as all other losses or expenses incurred directly or indirectly due to measures of preven- tion of the above-mentioned events are not compensated;

Posted by Sue on November 6, 2014 18:03

Sue,
Policy exclusions similar to those you state are generally part of every insurance policy, except personal assurance policies may allow you the option to pay additional premiums to cover normal exclusions. They will also require you to declare high risk activities such as sky diving, mountain climbing, Bungy jumping, bullet proof vest testers or a list of other activities which expose them to increased risk or liability.

Note: "military operations or operations considered as such (with or without declaring war);"

And

"well as all other losses or expenses incurred directly or indirectly due to measures of preven- tion of the above-mentioned events are not compensated;"

Posted by Manowar on November 6, 2014 20:12

Manowar

That's right, it is what I stated above.
Some insurers take a positions that virtually all usual tourist activities with higher-than-usual risks shoukd be declared and thus bear extra premium.
Some insurers like the one AmEx uses includes lot of such activities in the coverage without epadditional declaration, but yes, AmEx is a premium product.

In regard of martial law, it doesn't matter for a regular insurance claim, that a martial law is in place, as all losses which are resulted from war-like events are excluded from coverage regardless whether martial law is officially declared or not.
"Regular insurance claim" shouldn't have as a factor martial law at all. Say, if someone got a flue, that is not connected to martial law per se, so it's covered.
However flight delays or injuries etc. caused by public protests, whether during the time when martial law was in place or not, or by measures taken by authorities are not covered.

That is why it doesn't matter if there is a martial law in place in the Kingdom for similarly worded insurance exceotion clauses.

I talk quite in length with 2 insurance companies today, not with sakes clerks, but insisted they go back to higher management / actuaries to check the matter. Actually, of course , this all is defined by reinsurers.

However, it could be the case that in some market - may be in Australia, this I don't know - there is a deferent exceptions clause that is dictated by another reinsurer, and that may exclude coverage for all losses that took a place in a country or territory under martial law, regardless of casual link with martial law.

I personally never seen such clauses in policies, but they may exist.
May be Australian insurers say wish to limit their exposure to Australians traveling to Fiji or Papua province.

As I said Egypt was all the time uglier martial law, and never heard that Eurooeans, incl.common law countries, ever had problems with travel insurance coverage there.

Posted by Sue on November 6, 2014 22:51

Sue, insurance is a business and those who run it have obligations to shareholders to maximise profit. In doing so they attempt to minimise losses and maximise income. This is achieved by excluding as many undefined risks as possible and carrying those risks that can be statistically calculated with reasonable accuracy.
As a business they only care about the insured enough to make those who purchase insurance products believe that they care and it is worthwhile.
Every person who takes out insurance is just another number to them, nothing more.

Posted by Manowar on November 7, 2014 09:06