Insurance Opinions welcome.

[gregers]

The car involved in the accident was on Private Land so would not be covered by its Motor Insurance.

so by the above sentence,we all are uninsured when we venture onto supermarket land??

i find that hard to believe,think thats just there way of trying to wriggle out of anything that may come there way.

iirc im sure ive read something about the signs they put up saying 'at your own risk' think it was 'martin lewis' money saving expert,its a load of tosh?

 

[conny]

An interesting story, I dont think things have changed much, IMO the "No Win No Fee" Solicitors would have had a hard job to prove this particular case.

The argument would be why did she HAVE to go to the Supermarket knowing there was snow on the ground, she could have waited until it had cleared and was safe, or go somewhere that was not snow bound.
The car involved in the accident was on Private Land so would not be covered by its Motor Insurance.

In hindsight it may have been a good idea that the woman concerned had a Private Accident Insurance policy, People think they are covered by Public Liability Insurances but that is not necessarily the case.

Surely people shouldn't be expected to stay at home just because there is snow/ice on the ground? If that were the case no-one would be able to go to work. And why should individuals have to take out 'Private Accident Insurance' to cover themselves against something like this when both 'guilty' parties have to have insurance to cover eventualities such as this?

Sorry to disagree with you but Snow and Ice is dangerous to walk on everyone knows that, so in Insurance terms one is putting themselves at risk if they go out in these conditions,
Insurance is for accidents that are not expected. one can expect the possibility of being injured in these conditions so Insurance will not cover this sort of situation.

So in your words if someone has this insurance and they fall on the ice they will not be covered because walking on ice is dangerous, yes?

Then the insurance company could apply that rule to just about anything someone does. Pedestrian walking down the road, maybe close to the kerb, and is hit on the elbow by a passing cars wing mirror and elbow is shattered and made totally useless. Driver drives off and is never caught, (or is caught and doesn't have insurance), so injured party has to claim off their Accident insurance. Insurance company says, no, it is dangerous to walk along the pavement so we are not paying you out.

Insurance is not for accidents that are not expected. It is there IN CASE OF accidents. No accident is expected unless someone is being downright stupid. I don't see that going shopping in mildly adverse weather is doing something stupid.

 

[crank39]

An interesting story, I dont think things have changed much, IMO the "No Win No Fee" Solicitors would have had a hard job to prove this particular case.

The argument would be why did she HAVE to go to the Supermarket knowing there was snow on the ground, she could have waited until it had cleared and was safe, or go somewhere that was not snow bound.
The car involved in the accident was on Private Land so would not be covered by its Motor Insurance.

In hindsight it may have been a good idea that the woman concerned had a Private Accident Insurance policy, People think they are covered by Public Liability Insurances but that is not necessarily the case.

Surely people shouldn't be expected to stay at home just because there is snow/ice on the ground? If that were the case no-one would be able to go to work. And why should individuals have to take out 'Private Accident Insurance' to cover themselves against something like this when both 'guilty' parties have to have insurance to cover eventualities such as this?

Sorry to disagree with you but Snow and Ice is dangerous to walk on everyone knows that, so in Insurance terms one is putting themselves at risk if they go out in these conditions,
Insurance is for accidents that are not expected. one can expect the possibility of being injured in these conditions so Insurance will not cover this sort of situation.

So in your words if someone has this insurance and they fall on the ice they will not be covered because walking on ice is dangerous, yes?

Then the insurance company could apply that rule to just about anything someone does. Pedestrian walking down the road, maybe close to the kerb, and is hit on the elbow by a passing cars wing mirror and elbow is shattered and made totally useless. Driver drives off and is never caught, (or is caught and doesn't have insurance), so injured party has to claim off their Accident insurance. Insurance company says, no, it is dangerous to walk along the pavement so we are not paying you out.

Insurance is not for accidents that are not expected. It is there IN CASE OF accidents. No accident is expected unless someone is being downright stupid. I don't see that going shopping in mildly adverse weather is doing something stupid.

Agreed, getting out of bed in the morning, crossing the road, driving to work, it can all be dangerous. Are you saying that when the snow comes we can't go to work because we won't be insured?

 

[JBR]

Sorry to hear about your partner's misfortune, Conny.

I still think it's the driver's fault, whether his insurance pays out or not. That's between the driver and his insurers.

Now that we do have no-win no-fee lawyers, wouldn't it be worth approaching one of those companies?

 

[conny]

Happened over 20 years ago JB, well before I met her and way out of the statutory time limit I would imagine.

 

[Bosswhite]

An interesting story, I dont think things have changed much, IMO the "No Win No Fee" Solicitors would have had a hard job to prove this particular case.

The argument would be why did she HAVE to go to the Supermarket knowing there was snow on the ground, she could have waited until it had cleared and was safe, or go somewhere that was not snow bound.
The car involved in the accident was on Private Land so would not be covered by its Motor Insurance.

In hindsight it may have been a good idea that the woman concerned had a Private Accident Insurance policy, People think they are covered by Public Liability Insurances but that is not necessarily the case.

Surely people shouldn't be expected to stay at home just because there is snow/ice on the ground? If that were the case no-one would be able to go to work. And why should individuals have to take out 'Private Accident Insurance' to cover themselves against something like this when both 'guilty' parties have to have insurance to cover eventualities such as this?

Sorry to disagree with you but Snow and Ice is dangerous to walk on everyone knows that, so in Insurance terms one is putting themselves at risk if they go out in these conditions,
Insurance is for accidents that are not expected. one can expect the possibility of being injured in these conditions so Insurance will not cover this sort of situation.

So in your words if someone has this insurance and they fall on the ice they will not be covered because walking on ice is dangerous, yes?

Then the insurance company could apply that rule to just about anything someone does. Pedestrian walking down the road, maybe close to the kerb, and is hit on the elbow by a passing cars wing mirror and elbow is shattered and made totally useless. Driver drives off and is never caught, (or is caught and doesn't have insurance), so injured party has to claim off their Accident insurance. Insurance company says, no, it is dangerous to walk along the pavement so we are not paying you out.

Insurance is not for accidents that are not expected. It is there IN CASE OF accidents. No accident is expected unless someone is being downright stupid. I don't see that going shopping in mildly adverse weather is doing something stupid.

I agree Insurance is there in case of accidents, but not for someone that deliberately puts themselves in the position of having an accident. There was NO reason why the person should have been in the Supermarket car park at that time, under those conditions.
As you state, the Solicitor chose not to pursue the case that should tell you that the Insurance Companies were not liable.Even though its 20 years ago nothing will have changed.

 

[Dextraneous]

For what it's worth, IMHO, the scenario the op describes comes under "act of god". It was an accident - nobody is to blame and nobody is at fault. This is the sort of situation which we pay NI for. However, I also tend to think that the "insurance" bit of NI should mean that damaged property and upgrading houses to accommodate subsequent barrier free/special needs equipment and facilities should be paid for by the state.

 

[HerrNigred]

Happened over 20 years ago JB, well before I met her and way out of the statutory time limit I would imagine.

3 Years is the statutory time limit, basically.
There are some minor complications about 3 years from the accident or 3 years from when it became clear that the result/repercussions was caused by the incident/situation, e.g. lung disease caused by working conditions, but I can't see how that would apply in your case.

I hesitate to include the following because I don't want to appear insensitive and that is very definitely not the reason for appending it:
Sorry to be morbid and blunt, but the only possibility, that I can see, is: when your partner dies a post mortem proves that the death was a direct result of the accident, might mean that a 3 year time limit applies from the time of death, but then it would be subject to expensive investigation and I wouldn't like to guess at its success..
If you want to rant at me, I fully understand and I will delete the offensive bit.
BTW, sorry about my levity re the situation earlier in the thread.

 

[HerrNigred]

. ....upgrading houses to accommodate subsequent barrier free/special needs equipment and facilities should be paid for by the state.

They are normally paid for and provided by the Local Authority (Social Services) even on the occasions of compensation being paid.
If you want your own contractors ro provide the necassary, you will normally be expected to foot the bill.

Social Services will provide what they consider required and appropriate, which may not be quite the same as what you consider (or any other reasonable person, for that matter) is required.

 

[AronSearle]

For what it's worth, IMHO, the scenario the op describes comes under "act of god". It was an accident

Speed is the key, as speed will determine the severity and likelyhood of an accident.

So unless god was pressing down on the accelorator, ******.

There was NO reason why the person should have been in the Supermarket car park at that time, under those conditions.

You are a ****.

It is perfectly acceptable to walk in bad conditions, because you can't hurt anyone else doing so.

I don't know what you would do in norway or canada in winter, not leave the house for months

Driving a car can kill, so you have to access the condition of the roads, your ability, and the risk.

The driver is at fault.

 

[JBR]

You are a ****.

Good word! I haven't used it for years as I thought it was one of our prohibited offensive words. The automatic censor seems quite happy with it, though.
I might resurrect it now, as there are certain people who are deserving of its appellation!

 

[EddieM]

its so maddening that two big companies and a driver get away scot

Of course the situation must be extremely frustrating and annoying in that justice doesn't seem to have been done. However it's not the drivers fault that their insurers wouldn't pay out. The driver can't force to company to do that. I think the laws around these sort of things have changed now, for instance you cannot drive under the influence on private land now, but this wasn't the case in the not too distant past.

I wish the best for the upcoming operation and hope for a good outcome.

 

[EddieM]

I would have thought that the solicitor should have persued the avenue of suing the driver directly with a view to making a claim from the drivers public liability insurance (usually bundled in with your houshold contents) assuming of course the driver had such cover. Alternatively as you pointed out a civil case against the driver for damages. Sounds like she had a dopey solicitor, mind you my recent dealings with the law have shown what an ass it is.

 

[conny]

Happened over 20 years ago JB, well before I met her and way out of the statutory time limit I would imagine.

3 Years is the statutory time limit, basically.
There are some minor complications about 3 years from the accident or 3 years from when it became clear that the result/repercussions was caused by the incident/situation, e.g. lung disease caused by working conditions, but I can't see how that would apply in your case.

I hesitate to include the following because I don't want to appear insensitive and that is very definitely not the reason for appending it:
Sorry to be morbid and blunt, but the only possibility, that I can see, is: when your partner dies a post mortem proves that the death was a direct result of the accident, might mean that a 3 year time limit applies from the time of death, but then it would be subject to expensive investigation and I wouldn't like to guess at its success..
If you want to rant at me, I fully understand and I will delete the offensive bit.
BTW, sorry about my levity re the situation earlier in the thread.

No offence taken at all mate. It wasn't offensive, just factual.

To all others;

Thank you for your comments on this. There have been some very interesting comments and I haven't taken offence at any of them, you are all entitled to your various opinions, (besides, I have a skin like a rhino lol).
It has never been my intention to seek re-dress as I know it is way out of the limits for doing so. It was merely an exercise in knowing peoples opinions. Thank you.

 

[gregers]

im wondering now,how much has changed if the situation were to arise again in this era?.