View previous topic | View next topic

A step too far?

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

PDR
903948.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:03 am Reply with quote

Apologies for the current bun link, but I heard this being discussed on R4's Today prog this morning. I can't help but thiunk that this really is a step too far - it would open the door to people claiming against motor insurance for any case where the crook drove to the crime. It could conceivably make it possible to sue Cowell's car insurer for the suffering inclicted by Have I Got X-Factor for You. The effect on insurance premiums would, I feel, be quite large.

What do people think?

PDR

 
Neotenic
903966.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:33 am Reply with quote

I think I'm going to be watching the outcome of this case with interest.

I think the idea that it could 'open the floodgates' is itself a step too far - I don't think, for example, a bank would try to claim for losses in a robbery through the insurance of the getaway driver. If nothing else, people driving away from crimes like that usually do so in a stolen, and therefore uninsured, vehicle.

I do think that if anyone was ever wondering why insurance policies are so cumbersomely worded, then this is a prime example of why that is the case.

My initial, knee-jerk feeling based on a thoroughly incomplete reading of the available facts is that the case will probably fail - at least any claim against a standard commercial vehicle insurance, anyway. If the policy had an indemnity element, however, that could be a different story.

Additionally, the insurer is currently shrouded in anonymity. If their identity becomes public knowledge, then I would imagine that the chances of the case being settled out of court to avoid the publicity would increase quite dramatically.

 
sally carr
903969.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:46 am Reply with quote

Having read the article (The Sun ugh!) it sounds like they have a case.

 
'yorz
903971.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:56 am Reply with quote

Maybe it's just me, but why stop there? Why not sue the drinks company for providing Worboys with the opportunity to drug prospective victims by spiking the contents of the bottles?

Neither vehicle nor the bottles were produced with the intent to have them used in the way they were in this case.

 
Neotenic
903972.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:01 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Having read the article (The Sun ugh!) it sounds like they have a case.


The only reason this may be so (read the Beeb one instead) is because a QC will be trying to exploit an ambiguity in the policy wording.

An analagous position would be suing a nightclub's insurer if you got glassed in the club on a Friday night. I'm not sure that's really the proper use of insurance at all, however emotive the case in question may be.

 
Arcane
903978.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:25 am Reply with quote

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/compensation-claim-fears-cramp-students-after-classmate-sues-girl-over-tennis-mishap/story-e6freoof-1226336557842

And you have things like this occurring, where a child gets sued after another child is hit in the face by a tennis ball or two. And the tennis company. And the school.

Who invented tennis? SUE THEM TOO!

 
Strawberry
903981.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:32 am Reply with quote

Harry Gem and Augurio Perera invented tennis. Gem died in 1881 and it isn't know what happened to Perera after 1881, so it might be a bit difficult to sue them.

 
Neotenic
903983.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:40 am Reply with quote

An additional thing for people to consider here is that the victims of Worboys will already have been eligible for Compensation from CICA, and reading that document would suggest that they would be entitled to a minimum of 11,000.

Of course, it's very difficult to put a cold, hard, cash sum on the value of a severly traumatic event - but even so, I do wonder precisely where the boundary lies between adequate recompense and money-grabbing. I do wonder whether the particular emotiveness of this particular case may have allowed that boundary to become a little blurred.

 
'yorz
903984.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:41 am Reply with quote

Here's a claim waiting to happen too, then...

 
'yorz
903986.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:46 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
I do wonder precisely where the boundary lies between adequate recompense and money-grabbing.

Indeed. And I wonder whether the victims came up with this idea of sueing the cab company or their solicitors. I wouldn't be surprised if it proves to be the latter. To me, it is such a stretch - it wouldn't have occurred to me.

 
Arcane
903991.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:02 am Reply with quote

Strawberry wrote:
Harry Gem and Augurio Perera invented tennis. Gem died in 1881 and it isn't know what happened to Perera after 1881, so it might be a bit difficult to sue them.


Sigh. I was joking, making an ironic post.

 
Strawberry
903994.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:13 am Reply with quote

(i wasn't being completely serious either. But i do have Asperger's so i can't always tell when people are joking.)


Last edited by Strawberry on Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
Jenny
904002.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:15 am Reply with quote

There's a simple explanation for this case - the insurance company has deep pockets.

 
'yorz
904007.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:47 am Reply with quote

I understand that, but it would set a precedent, wouldn't it? And that could hit the smaller companies as well.

 
swot
904015.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:19 pm Reply with quote

Strawberry wrote:
(i wasn't being completly serious either. But i do have Asperger's so i can't always tell when people are joking.)


If it helps, I figured you were just joking back, albeit in a factually accurate manner.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group