Should people like this be helped?

Forums › Off topic › Should people like this be helped?

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2087433 11-Sep-2018 11:33

The other side of this is that if the TRAVEL insurance companies were to routinely pay out on cases like this the travel insurance industry would soon either disappear completely or become incredibly expensive. The end result is that most of us would be unable to get travel insurance at all.

The traVel insurance companies are not the ogres some make them out to be. The margins are tight and it is competitive.

quickymart

14941 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13956

ID Verified

#2087457 11-Sep-2018 12:14

Sad to hear but last I heard her condition was meant to be improving?

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#2087489 11-Sep-2018 13:29

"Kiwi mum Abby Hartley dies after 'long battle' in Bali"
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/106976756/kiwi-mum-abby-hartley-dies-after-long-battle-in-bali

I see Jacinda has a few comments regarding it, will have a listen when home

[Mod edit (MF): no funny names]

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41070

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2087635 11-Sep-2018 15:51

@coil No funny names. It's against the FUG. Next one will be a holiday.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

quickymart

14941 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13956

ID Verified

#2087656 11-Sep-2018 16:22

Pretty disgusted to see David Seymour also trying to turn this into a political point scoring game - but it's not like Act commands the power it once did, either; I imagine he's probably trying to get some attention, but this (IMO) isn't the way to do it. Besides, I thought Act was all about "personal responsibility" (or they used to be)?

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2087814 11-Sep-2018 20:58

Fred99:

Some very harsh assumptions made by some posters, seemingly based on the belief that she was deliberately trying to cheat the system.

Agreed. I laughed (and felt tempted to weep) at all the "Should have known better!" pile ons. When one looks at the repeated and general lack of understanding of basic legal issues that so many on here demonstrate, it's hardly beyond imagination that more than the odd person in this country could be caught out in similar circumstances to that this family found themselves in. There are complex arguments around whether or not the government should/should not provide assistance in this instance and I personally have no particularly strong views one way or another. But the way a lot of posters here seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of piling on and showing their moral indignation over god knows what is disturbing, to put it mildly. But then again, this kind of pile on is not exactly rare either.

Sad really.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2087839 11-Sep-2018 22:02

dejadeadnz:

Fred99:

Some very harsh assumptions made by some posters, seemingly based on the belief that she was deliberately trying to cheat the system.

Agreed. I laughed (and felt tempted to weep) at all the "Should have known better!" pile ons. When one looks at the repeated and general lack of understanding of basic legal issues that so many on here demonstrate, it's hardly beyond imagination that more than the odd person in this country could be caught out in similar circumstances to that this family found themselves in. There are complex arguments around whether or not the government should/should not provide assistance in this instance and I personally have no particularly strong views one way or another. But the way a lot of posters here seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of piling on and showing their moral indignation over god knows what is disturbing, to put it mildly. But then again, this kind of pile on is not exactly rare either.

Sad really.

Who here has rubbed their hands together or shown glee at this poor family's situation?

What misunderstood basic legal issues are you referring to?

What complex legal arguments are there around whether the government should provide assistance?

What I see here is the common sense observation expressed by several people that the woman had a pre-existing condition, the insurance policy says these are not covered. As far as I can tell the family haven't contested these points and are understandably having a crack at getting the company to use its discretion and pay out regardless. What legal issues complex or basic have I missed here? If the company pays out, what message does that send to other potential clients?

As the Prime Minister pointed out, there are hundreds of these cases every year. If they pay this one out then why not others? Following from that why would anyone bother with insurance if there's an expectation the government will bail them out?

All I see is simple questions with simple answers.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2087847 11-Sep-2018 22:50

Fred99, for example, has highlighted a potential quandary. The head of the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman's office has recently come out advocating reforms around issues of non-disclosure by insured and the perceived harshness of insurers being able to avoid policies on the ground of non-disclosures that many ordinary people would overlook. On one of the travel insurance policies cited, claims can be denied if it involves a condition that is "under investigation". I can tell you that a colleague is currently acting pro bono in a case and she is actively in discussions with two QCs over arguments as to what "investigation" means between an insured, a broker, and an insurance company in the context of a life insurance claim. But it's all very simple according to you -- then again, you seem to be an expert on everything.

As I've discussed, I don't have particularly strong views either way on this issue. But a thread full of moral exhibitionists bleeting on repeatedly about issues of moral hazard that are well-known and well-explored in addition to making laughably self-aggrandising claims like fully understanding all the terms of insurance and their implications (a claim that many specialist insurance lawyers wouldn't even make - there is a reason why there's so much insurance litigation), against the background of a tragic case where dignified and respectful silence would be more befitting, tells one plenty.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2087885 12-Sep-2018 07:46

kryptonjohn:

What I see here is the common sense observation expressed by several people that the woman had a pre-existing condition, the insurance policy says these are not covered. As far as I can tell the family haven't contested these points and are understandably having a crack at getting the company to use its discretion and pay out regardless. What legal issues complex or basic have I missed here? If the company pays out, what message does that send to other potential clients?

The family didn't engage the travel insurance provider publicly because they were technically in the wrong. This doesn't however mean the insurance company isn't completely blameless. Fine print in advertising is kinda frowned upon these days, and yet many policies are not really different.

I'd go as far as saying 99% of people who buy travel insurance (and probably many people who take out any insurance, or even any contract) don't actually read the terms and conditions of their policy or contract.

I'm sure many people who take out travel insurance would be surprised what it won't cover them for, and even in situations where you might expect it to help you such as a flight cancelled you may well find you have no cover. There are also policies out there that won't provide any cover under many sections of the policy until you have actually left NZ - so have a policy that covers disrupted or missed flights and you may find you've got no cover if you miss your domestic connecting flight for example.

Who's at fault here? The person who doesn't read their policy or the company who tries to make their policy as difficult to understand as they possibly can? My answer is both.

I started to write a post for Traveltalk looking at some of the catches of common policies in NZ and found this incredibly tough going, even as somebody who travels very frequently and fully understands what my annual policy does and doesn't cover me for. Before I renewed my policy earlier in the year I actually spent probably 6-7 hours reading through a lot of policies, and while the vast majority don't differ significantly, most all have some catches that make them unique.

It's not really related to the topic of this thread, but it is related to the topic of insurance, and that's my one tip for anybody relying on credit card cover while traveling. Make sure you fully understand the claims process for your card and what may be required. Ringing your credit card insurance provider WILL require you to provide proof of your entitlement for cover before they do anything. This means you will need to know your credit card statement and billing date for flights or prepaid travel that entitled you to cover.

Going through this process one day with AIG (who provided ANZ's cover at the time) was frustrating and the single reason I take out an annual travel policy despite the benefits not differing significantly. I don't want to be unfortunate enough to be stuck in a US hospital in a situation where no treatment will occur until I can find the date I booked my flights and the date these were billed on my credit card. I want somebody to be able to ring and provide my policy number or name and for them to immediately know I'm covered.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2087930 12-Sep-2018 08:13

Good post. I do use the Kiwibank Platinum credit card based insurance and posted the policy document earlier in this thread. It would be one of the simpler policies I've read and unlike many others I think it can be comprehended by a reasonably literate person. Based on your comment re the claim verification I will annotate my tripit itineraries from now on with the credit card payment details so I can look that up easily if I need to.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2087932 12-Sep-2018 08:20

dejadeadnz:

Fred99, for example, has highlighted a potential quandary. The head of the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman's office has recently come out advocating reforms around issues of non-disclosure by insured and the perceived harshness of insurers being able to avoid policies on the ground of non-disclosures that many ordinary people would overlook. On one of the travel insurance policies cited, claims can be denied if it involves a condition that is "under investigation". I can tell you that a colleague is currently acting pro bono in a case and she is actively in discussions with two QCs over arguments as to what "investigation" means between an insured, a broker, and an insurance company in the context of a life insurance claim. But it's all very simple according to you -- then again, you seem to be an expert on everything.

As I've discussed, I don't have particularly strong views either way on this issue. But a thread full of moral exhibitionists bleeting on repeatedly about issues of moral hazard that are well-known and well-explored in addition to making laughably self-aggrandising claims like fully understanding all the terms of insurance and their implications (a claim that many specialist insurance lawyers wouldn't even make - there is a reason why there's so much insurance litigation), against the background of a tragic case where dignified and respectful silence would be more befitting, tells one plenty.

So there was no gleeful hand rubbing then? Glad we cleared that up.

As to respectful silence... Silence would be the absolute worst response. If one good thing has come out of this sad case it is that people will now be more aware that they should never omit a known condition from a policy application.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2087966 12-Sep-2018 08:30

dejadeadnz:

Fred99, for example, has highlighted a potential quandary. The head of the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman's office has recently come out advocating reforms around issues of non-disclosure by insured and the perceived harshness of insurers being able to avoid policies on the ground of non-disclosures that many ordinary people would overlook. On one of the travel insurance policies cited, claims can be denied if it involves a condition that is "under investigation". I can tell you that a colleague is currently acting pro bono in a case and she is actively in discussions with two QCs over arguments as to what "investigation" means between an insured, a broker, and an insurance company in the context of a life insurance claim. But it's all very simple according to you -- then again, you seem to be an expert on everything.

As I've discussed, I don't have particularly strong views either way on this issue. But a thread full of moral exhibitionists bleeting on repeatedly about issues of moral hazard that are well-known and well-explored in addition to making laughably self-aggrandising claims like fully understanding all the terms of insurance and their implications (a claim that many specialist insurance lawyers wouldn't even make - there is a reason why there's so much insurance litigation), against the background of a tragic case where dignified and respectful silence would be more befitting, tells one plenty.

If this was a legal forum where everyone was not a layman I would agree, but its not. Every topic here has laymen and subject matter experts, who could add valued comments in, not complain about laymen's comments. if laypeople were excluded there would be no incorrect comments, only expert comments, who in themselves would not be needed as everyone is an expert anyway. This is why forums like this exist, everyone can participate, and learn from others. I appreciate your posts, but the complaints about layman posts should really cease, IMHO.

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#2087972 12-Sep-2018 08:36

kryptonjohn:

dejadeadnz:

Fred99, for example, has highlighted a potential quandary. The head of the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman's office has recently come out advocating reforms around issues of non-disclosure by insured and the perceived harshness of insurers being able to avoid policies on the ground of non-disclosures that many ordinary people would overlook. On one of the travel insurance policies cited, claims can be denied if it involves a condition that is "under investigation". I can tell you that a colleague is currently acting pro bono in a case and she is actively in discussions with two QCs over arguments as to what "investigation" means between an insured, a broker, and an insurance company in the context of a life insurance claim. But it's all very simple according to you -- then again, you seem to be an expert on everything.

As I've discussed, I don't have particularly strong views either way on this issue. But a thread full of moral exhibitionists bleeting on repeatedly about issues of moral hazard that are well-known and well-explored in addition to making laughably self-aggrandising claims like fully understanding all the terms of insurance and their implications (a claim that many specialist insurance lawyers wouldn't even make - there is a reason why there's so much insurance litigation), against the background of a tragic case where dignified and respectful silence would be more befitting, tells one plenty.

So there was no gleeful hand rubbing then? Glad we cleared that up.

As to respectful silence... Silence would be the absolute worst response. If one good thing has come out of this sad case it is that people will now be more aware that they should never omit a known condition from a policy application.

First of all I freely admit I haven't read all ten pages of this sad and alarming thread, but one question - what about an unknown condition ?

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2087986 12-Sep-2018 08:50

rb99:

First of all I freely admit I haven't read all ten pages of this sad and alarming thread, but one question - what about an unknown condition ?

Unknown cannot mean its pre existing. I gather, and that is fraught with doubt given legal definitions as recently discussed here, but if its unknown, and is not "should have been known" then I take it as not pre existing. There must be many conditions that are there, but unknown.

But its a good question. Say you dont have asthma. But its in the family, and you get asthma while travelling, the insurance company might say that you should have known, or should have been diagnosed, due to family history, even though you may not present any obvious symptoms?

If this was the case in my example, you can only be covered by a condition added to your body, such as a an impact, or a local disease. Its clear that pre existng needs to have a better description for normal people. Or clearly list the situations where there is coverage and an extra cost for anything else.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2087990 12-Sep-2018 08:56

rb99:

First of all I freely admit I haven't read all ten pages of this sad and alarming thread, but one question - what about an unknown condition ?

An unknown condition isn't preexisting per se.

To quote my 1Cover PDS -

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13