Tharma Lingam; Hi, It is necessary to understand the intention of the insurer. If they had offered terrorism cover and qualified it with exclusions concerning biological, chemical agents or nuclear devices, they are referring to weapons of mass destruction as mentioned by Chris Yap. It is still early days to determine the motive of the bomber and his activity. Was he a paranoid student, a psychotic, unemployed, lost man or a cell-member of al-Qaeda? Let's not be presumptuous. A bomb may be built by a 15 year old today with information available in the internet.
It seems to me, that this act is an isolated event far from an attempt to bring down half of Bangkok through biological, chemical or nuclear means. Cheers
Chia Yun Khim: I share Chris Yap's comments, the said policy wordings 'biological, chemical agents ......' started to creep into accident policy terrorism exclusions after the US-led Alliance forces destroyed Iraq on claims that the latter was in possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), Indeed, history has its fair share in determining the contents of insurance policies ....- Chia Yun Khim: As for Lisa's comments I believe policy cover may be excluded if death or bodily injuries was sustained as a direct consequence of any military actions of the military authorities in power; but this is arguable as there has been no official declaration of the status of the current ruling regime in Thailand, the military has just 'taken over' the government of the nation with the constitutional monarch still in status quo, no martial laws are in force and political parties are still around..... Anyway todate no party has yet claimed responsibility for the aforesaid Bangkok's blasts and explosions and the motives have yet to be ascertained.....
Andrew Wong: Terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear such as bombing or kidnapping.
The extended Terrorism Cover is only in respect of death or bodily injury. Therefore, Emergency Medical Evacuation & Bringing Back to Malaysia or Repatriation of Mortal Remains including Burial & Cremation are not payable under the policy. My views and observation welcome!- Chia Yun Khim: Nowadays almost all travel insuance policies provide cover for Emergency Medical Evacuation & Repatriation of Mortal Remains or Ashes of the deceased. For mortal remains and ashes of the deceased this benefit will provide for conveyance of the same BACK TO Malaysia only and exclude any conveyance of the deceased's body or ashes from Malaysia to a foreign destination. The cover for this benefit can be up to the tune of more than 1 million. Burial and Cremation expenses for local burial overseas likewise are also covered. These two benefits are granted irrespective of whether the insured died of the acts of terrorism, accidental injuries or covered illnesses. Emergency Evacuation due to medically neccessary conditions of the insured is also similarly covered.
- Andrew Wong: Yam Lim Song: - It was my first post that brought about this confusion as I initially thought all bombing materials would have some kind of Chemical Agents associated to it but Chris Yap has clarified that it is not what I think and I agreed with him that the policy will response as in the Bangkok blast case. But only limited to and in respect of death or bodily injury considering this is an act of Terrorism. The cost of Emergency Medical Evacuation & Bringing Back to Malaysia or Repatriation of Mortal Remains including Burial & Cremation are not payable under the policy in my opinion.
Raymond Huang; I want to agree with Chia Yun Khim regarding Repatriation of Mortal Remains even if death was caused by terrorism. Also in respect of Medical Evacuation even if the injury was due to terrorism. When death or injury is due to a covered event, Medical Evacuation or Repatriation of Mortal Remains must also apply otherwise such benefits would be rendered useless.- Andrew Wong: It is my desire to also agree with Chia Yun Khim andRaymond Huang. And I indeed hope claims dept would interpret it the same way cos' the expression in the policy is very clear that for Terrorism, they will only pay "in respect of death (RM250K) or bodily injury (medical up to RM300K)". Emergency Medical Evacuation & Bringing Back to Malaysia or Repatriation of Mortal Remains including Burial & Cremation are additional expenses.
- Andrew Wong Here you go Julian Teoh -
Benefit 1.3 - Emergency Medical Evacuation & Bringing Back to Malaysia
Reimbursement up to RM1,000,000 for an insured person which includes air or surface transportation, medical care during transportation, communications and all usual ancillary charges incurred in moving the insured person with a serious medical condition to the nearest hospital where appropriate medical care is available. We will not pay to evacuate an insured person from Malaysia to a foreign destination.
You must contact MSIG Assist to obtain approval in advance for any evacuation and to make the necessary
transportation arrangements. Failure to do so will invalid a claim for such costs.
Benefit 2 - Burial and Cremation
Reimbursement up to RM5,000 for charges in the event of your death for your burial or cremation in the locality
where your death occurs plus the cost of conveyance of your ashes to Malaysia. We will not pay cost of conveyance of
your ashes from Malaysia to a foreign destination.
Benefit 3 - Repatriation of Mortal Remains
Reimbursement for conveyance of your body to Malaysia. We will not pay for cost of conveyance of your body
from Malaysia to a foreign destination. 
Julian Teoh Thanks Andrew Wong. Based on those wordings, I would argue that all benefits are covered. "In the event of your death", without any more conditions, would include death resulting from terrorism, and the Repatriation wording ("your body") follows on from that. Similarly with the Evac clause, the trigger is a "serious medical condition"; the only question here is going to be whether the Insurer agrees that the Insured's injury is serious enough and approves the expense.- Andrew Wong But let's study the Endorsement again:-
TERRORISM COVER
Notwithstanding General Exception 1b, the Policy is extended to cover the insured person in respect of death or bodily injury which may be sustained through acts of terrorism provided that there is no liability when such acts of terrorism involve the use of biological, chemical agents or nuclear devices.
Clearly, this Endorsement covers Secion 1 - PA, Benefit 1 - Death AND Section 2 - Medical for bodily injury in this case, Benefit 1.1 - Medical Expenses and Benefit 1.2 - Follow up treatment in Malaysia.
Benefit 1.3 for Emergency Medical Evacuation & Bringing Back to Malaysia, Benefit 2 - Burial and Cremation and Benefit 3 - Repatriation of Mortal Remains apparently are not expressed in the Endorsement of Terrorism Cover. ~ It is really something to ponder on! - Raymond Huang Nothing to think about. Where the insurer did not specify what is excluded, then it is covered. The terrorism cover is an extension of cover but excluding 'biological .......' and subject to this limited exclusion of 'biological ......', death or injury due to terrorism will be covered and this will be inclusive of evacuation and repatriation benefits. If these benefits are not intended to be covered, then they should be clearly excluded under the wording of 'Terrorism Cover'. I am positive about the matter.
- Julian Teoh I would simply add to Raymond Huang's comment: at its very strongest for the Insurers, the terrorism endorsement is ambiguous as to whether the evac / repat / burial covers are also triggered when death or bodily injury form terrorism occurs. The doctrine of contra proferentem means the ambiguity will be construed against the Insurer, as the proposer of the policy wording. If the Insurer wanted to restrict the cover under the terrorism endorsement to exclude evac / repat / burial, it could have chosen much clearer words to do so.
- Tharma Lingam Hi Julian, as of today, the Thai authorities have not uttered a word about the culprit being a terrorist. So, I believe that this topic is presumptuous and academic. Not all bomb blasts are terrorist-related.
An insured can lose his life in an ordinary bomb blast carried out by a mentally deranged man who is unhappy about his lost cat.
If the insured dies, irrespective whether a terrorist has activated the bomb or a mad man has done it, the extended, fringe, subsidiary benefits will apply. If the insured is injured then Benefit 1.3 applies. If the insured is deceased, then Benefit 2 and 3 will apply.
The Terrorism cover is an extention. In whichever case i. e. even if there is no terrorism (a mad man detonates the bomb) the added benefits will be payable. - Chia Yun Khim May I share my last comment for this learning post by MrAndrew Wong. As surely pointed out by Mr Raymond Huang, what are specifically not covered or not intended to be covered will be and are all stipulated in the Exclusions or the General Exceptions ( Applicable To All Sections) of the particular insurer's policy uploaded by Mr. Andrew Wong or of any other insurers' policies, so to speak. We need to always refer to the Exceptions of the particular policy wherein contained may have the answers we are looking for, tqsm to all my friends for the learning.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
The recent Bangkok Blast - Travel Insurance
Our Japan Insurer have an extended Terrorism Cover that covers the insured person in respect of death or bodily injury. Assuming the Bangkok Blast is classified as an act of Terrorism, at first glance it seems the policy will hold cover. However, on reading the details, it however went further to qualify ".....provided that there is no liability when such acts of terrorism involved the use of biological, chemical agents or nuclear devices". I believe the `bomb blast' in this case would be interpreted as involving biological-chemical agents. Injuries and death as a result of such Terrorism Act in the recent Bangkok Blast would therefore, not be held cover under the Travel Insurance issued by the Japanese company in my opinion. Members view appreciated and thank you!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment