to think you don't go on holiday whilst having a high risk pregnancy and without adequate insurance

[Defenderwife]

Woman gives birth after food poisoning whilst on holiday in the Dominic Republic.

She had a cervical cerclage so knew she had a high risk pregnancy.

Her insurance didn't cover her entire pregnancy.

They are now stranded with a premature baby in a foreign country with no financial help and are relying on donations and GoFundMe.

I have made a donation but inside I feel almost angry. Why on earth have they let themselves be in this situation? That poor poor child.

If I'm wrong I'll willingly hold my hands up, but I'm not holding my breath over the hope they'll give all this donated money to charity

If their appeal on Go Fund Me says that the insurance company are not paying and the insurance company have said they will pay then perhaps they are risking misleading people into donating money?

It really is like deja vu with the Dax story

Sorry to disappoint you, multivac but I'll happily hold up one hand on the basis that they've apparently said they'll give the cash to charity

However I'll keep the other one by my side just for now, until it's clear they've actually done it ... if that's okay with you?

Oh what a surprise (not!). Rather than wait to find out from the insurers they started collecting money - probably thinking they could do another 'Dax'.

Right.

So if you

• had a premature baby born in DR

-the insurance company had not been forthcoming with money

• you cleared put all your own savings paying the hospital (I forget how much they had but in excess of £10k)

• your were under the impression the insurance company were not going to pay out

• when your money ran out the insurance company moved your baby to a hospital with third world conditions, you were worried for your baby's survival

Then you think the correct thing to do is wait more for the insurance company?

Really?

These parents are trying to save their newborn baby's life

Of course anyone would do all that they could in that situation. Setting up a gofundme? Great positive move.

Would the insurance company have paid out if the campaign hadn't happened? We may never know, but is sitting on your bum waiting for an insurance company who look like they have no intention of paying a smart move? I don't think so.

The insurance company have some questions to answer IMO.

Either the baby was insured all along - I'm which case why have the parents been left without the money thry were entitled to, and had to shell out so much money themselves and why has the baby ended up in a substandard hospital that could have cost her her life.

Or the baby was not insured and this is a charitable donation. I doubt this, but if it is true they need to call it such.

Well the insurance company have given a pretty clear statement posted upthread:

Infinity Insurance Solutions released the following statement: ‘IIS does not understand why the time difference has been reported as an issue in this case. All travel policies for leisure purposes sold in the UK have a stipulation on travelling when pregnant. In this case, the policy wording clearly states that pregnancy and childbirth are covered up to 28 weeks. After 28 weeks, normal birth is not covered but the needs of the baby are. Estimating gestational age is always difficult and the gestational age of the baby just prior to birth was found to be 29 weeks and 4 days, but cover for the baby’s needs was never in doubt. At no time has any member of the family been told there was no cover, moreover the time difference between the UK and the Dominican Republic is irrelevant and has never been mentioned by any of our staff
‘The facts are that Ms Halls presented in early labour at a private clinic that told her that they did not have the facilities to treat her and the premature baby, and made it clear that all treatment depended upon prior payment. Faced with this appalling threat, Ms Halls paid for the treatment with a debit card and paid a further sum to be transferred to Santo Domingo. We advised all involved in the case to transfer Ms Halls to the national maternity hospital in the capital Santo Domingo; an excellent hospital that was refurbished with new facilities in 2013. The clinic, however, transferred Ms Halls to their own larger clinic in Santo Domingo. Ms Halls paid for the treatment to date with a debit card and arranged for a further sum to be transferred to the second private clinic in Santo Domingo.
The onset of Ms Halls premature labour was triggered by an illness which falls within policy terms and conditions, therefore all of Ms Halls’ costs incurred to date will be reimbursed. All future costs in relation to Ms Halls’ medical needs abroad, as well as those of Evie will be covered by the policy and the family will be repatriated just as soon as Evie is well enough to travel without risk
‘Although not technically covered by the policy, Ms Halls’ telephone costs and taxi fares will be reimbursed as we consider this to be necessary for her safety. These costs are being covered “ex-gratia”, because we are sympathetic to the particularly difficult circumstances in which the family finds itself

And the insurance company have been very, very clear that they were not involved in any of the transfers that took place. Now, you can choose to disbelieve them. But what happened there isn't a fact at this stage, the two versions of event are opposing.

Insurance are paying.

It sounds from that as if the mother is not insured so will have to pay costs for child birth etc, but that the babies stay in SCBU is covered?

I don't see an issue with them setting up the GoFundMe page assuming they genuinely didn't believe the medical costs were covered by insurance but now they know their costs are being covered they need to update their GoFundMe and they need to do it immediately.

They have known for hours (all day?) and yet it still hasn't been updated. In the meantime lots and lots of people have been donating for a situation that no longer exists. Information, honesty and transparency are key.

All the family members helping promote this seem to have gone quiet. I wouldn't be able to relax if I knew people were donating money unecessarily. I bet some people that have donated will have gone short to help.

I really, really hope that everything goes well for the family. I hope the insurance covers all their costs and that baby Evie can come home soon. If they have inadvertently raised thousands of pounds for two hospital baby units then that's fine with me

"The onset of Mrs halls premature labour was triggered by an illness within policy terms and conditions therefore all of Ms halls costs incurred to date will be reimbursed"

It's clear from that they were insured. They weren't stupid or thick or arrogant. They did have the correct policy.

However someone has jumped the gun and started trying to raise money. It's not clear why that happened

But this always happens you need to go to a hospital and get treatment, you have to pay first to get treated, then you sort it out with your insurers. I wasn't pregnant but it happened to me in the USA, made the payment out of my money and called the insurers who said then out everything into place.

They are clear in that they don't know who stated the 'time difference issue' bet it was a comment made by someone that was then sensationalised.

People do need to be a little bit patient with their insurers instead of jumping the gun. Exactly what happened in Dax's case, it was over xmas so it was always going to take some time to get an answer as offices were shut etc. Instead of waiting for confirmation they just jumped the gun and decided the insurers weren't paying out.

They didn't have the correct policy! What that wording and the other part of the statement pretty clearly implies is that they weren't properly covered for normal pregnancy complications. She was covered because it was something outside the pregnancy that caused the labour.

Either way she was covered though wasn't she libraries? I still don't get your point- the illness she had was covered. She had the correct policy for the situation. Where does it say she didn't have the right insurance?

I'm not being picky, I genuinely have no idea why pps are saying their insurance was inadequate when the insurance company statement clearly says it was

I feel sorry for the parents.

I think they have been very stupid and not thought the risks through fully. I suspect they aren't the brightest sparks.

But they are in a horrible situation now and at the end of it there is a tiny, unwell baby at the heart of this fiasco.

Saying that I'm afraid I wouldn't donate to their page, I wish them all the best though and hope Evie is home safe soon.

Baby is covered mother is lucky that they are covering certain parts of her claim. Whether that will stretch to living there until possibly December who knows.

She's not lucky, their statement says clearly she is covered and that they are only paying taxi etc expenses as a gesture of goodwill

Either way she was covered though wasn't she libraries? I still don't get your point- the illness she had was covered. She had the correct policy for the situation. Where does it say she didn't have the right insurance?

She was covered for what happened. Yes.

She wasn't covered for travelling as a pregnant woman with a complicated pregnancy at 29 weeks pregnant. Had she developed pre-eclampsia instead of what happened, she'd have been royally fucked based on what the insurance company have released. Or if she'd haemoraged after a sudden premature delivery and needed a lot of high dependency care for a while. From what has been released, she took some very daft risks with her insurance policy and has been fortunate that what happened was covered.

And, if that is the case, it partly explains why there might have been a delay with confirming her cover. They would have been establishing what caused the premature labour and whether it was covered or not.

It sounds like they were bullied appallingly by the first hospital. And that is dreadful. But all the blame seems to be falling on the UK insurance company.

Well considering majority of people view insurance companies as parasitic companies its no surprise everyone automatically jumps to blame them, rather than get the facts first and apply common sense.

God, the comments on the GFM page makes me fear for the future of the human race. Are people really that thick?

But this always happens you need to go to a hospital and get treatment, you have to pay first to get treated, then you sort it out with your insurers

With some, perhaps, but in the case of major medical expenses there are certainly some who'll settle with the hospital direct (as in example below). That said I guess they may be the more expensive policies, and no doubt they'll still need to do some basic checks before giving the OK

www.direct-travel.co.uk/faq/do-i-have-to-pay-my-medical-bills-abroad.aspx

But that's fine libraries and only confirms she was covered. That's like saying I had a skiing accident which I had cover for but I wasn't covered for a car accident. Not sensible but since I didn't have a car accident, irrelevant.

Not relevant to a claim, but still pretty stupid. From what has been released , she didn't have proper insurance for the trip she took .

And to stretch the analogy, if they had difficulty establishing whether you had a car accident or a skiing accident, that can delay your claim.

Just because what happened happened to be covered under the insurance doesn't mean that she had adequate cover. And even if it does turn out that something means she was covered she didn't think she was. So the intention was to travel without adequate insurance. And that is almost as bad as actually having inadequate insurance.

Plus, she was even less covered than first stated. Did anyone else note in the statement that she was actually 29+4 when baby was born?