Litigation.

[magpie patrick]

 

Hence our Solicitor filing the court papers and awaiting a date.

The other driver (and their insurers) have admitted liability for the accident, and, have already settled and paid out on my wife's claim and the cost of writing of the car.

They (the Co-Op) have made an 'offer' to my Son to cover his loss of earnings, costs and damages, but as the Daughter in Laws claim is likely to be in the 'hundreds of thousands of pounds', they have suggested that the severity of her injuries was caused by my wife driving into a tree, and not, the original 'accident' for which their 'driver' was cvered, and for which they have paid out for.

 

I don't work in insurance or with that sort of liability, but I am aware of and have been in situations where one party knows their case is weak but, given the stakes they will enter into a staring match hoping the other party hasn't the stomach for a fight - this sounds like one of those. It looks like you and your solicitors do have the stomach for the fight so good luck to you - too often the bluff works

[baz gimson]

Prior to the '80s we were never this litigious - we caught it off the Yanks.

 

No it was a policy decision by the Thatcher government to make the legal system more open to those without the finance to bring claims.....the law of unintended consequences etc

 

But you knew that already.......because a free market in any service is a desirable outcome....

Edited February 11, 2017 by baz gimson

[Horace42]

My sister was involved in a minor shunt that was deemed to be her fault on a roundabout in Norwich, Insurance details exchanged and her car repaired end of, well no, some time later my sister got a count court judgement to pay for the repairs to the other car as her insurance company had not coughed up.

That sounds strange. The other car is the third party, and insurance is mandatory by law. So her policy should protect her against such claims, Especially as it seems she had fully comprehensive - in view of the fact that her car was repaired under it.

[WotEver]

 

I don't work in insurance or with that sort of liability, but I am aware of and have been in situations where one party knows their case is weak but, given the stakes they will enter into a staring match hoping the other party hasn't the stomach for a fight - this sounds like one of those. It looks like you and your solicitors do have the stomach for the fight so good luck to you - too often the bluff works

A business partner and I had a case where we were taken to court by someone who stated at one point "You can't afford to fight me". He was correct, and the points of law were complex. So even though the man on the Clapham omnibus would have thought he had no case, without good representation we stood a good chance of being made bankrupt by him.

 

We were fortunate enough to find a solicitor and barrister who were prepared to take on our case on a CFA basis. Many of the legal points argued were difficult for me to follow despite Council's patient explanations but the upshot was that following mediation the nasty little slimeball who started it off ended up paying £110,000 to us, all of which went to our legal team. His own legal bill would, I imagine, have been even higher.

 

It was a horrible two years of my life where I could have lost everything to a greedy and unscrupulous multi-millionaire but it was somewhat offset by seeing him a quarter of million worse off at the end of it.

 

The only folk who made any money out of the whole sorry saga were the legal teams of both sides (and the mediator).

[ditchcrawler]

That sounds strange. The other car is the third party, and insurance is mandatory by law. So her policy should protect her against such claims, Especially as it seems she had fully comprehensive - in view of the fact that her car was repaired under it.

It did, it was they just hadn't got round to paying out when they should have done.

[Horace42]

 

Hence our Solicitor filing the court papers and awaiting a date.

The other driver (and their insurers) have admitted liability for the accident, and, have already settled and paid out on my wife's claim and the cost of writing of the car.

They (the Co-Op) have made an 'offer' to my Son to cover his loss of earnings, costs and damages, but as the Daughter in Laws claim is likely to be in the 'hundreds of thousands of pounds', they have suggested that the severity of her injuries was caused by my wife driving into a tree, and not, the original 'accident' for which their 'driver' was cvered, and for which they have paid out for.

It doesn't make sense. What you say implies this is treated as two separate accidents. One caused by the other driver, and the other by your wife. And somehow they are not connected for insurance purposes.

There is also criminal negligence here for the other driver since liability has already been admitted. Your wife is likely to be prosecuted for dangerous driving if she was entirely to blame for the 'second' accident. What do the police say about this?

It all goes against logic and natural justice.

[Chewbacka]

From a liability view they may be two separate incidents. The insurance company for the other driver also has a duty to not pay out on grounds of fairness as it is their shareholders money they are giving away. They may be trying to get your insurance company to accept a level of liability to reduce their costs. They may also be testing the water to see how strong you are going to contest this and possibly to see how much your daughter is looking for, then offer a fair bit less to see if you will accept it to avoid the stress and costs of legal action. Whilst this all seems very mean spirited and unfair, but when lots of money is involved fairness and natural justice are the first to go.

[BruceinSanity]

From a liability view they may be two separate incidents. The insurance company for the other driver also has a duty to not pay out on grounds of fairness as it is their shareholders money they are giving away. They may be trying to get your insurance company to accept a level of liability to reduce their costs. They may also be testing the water to see how strong you are going to contest this and possibly to see how much your daughter is looking for, then offer a fair bit less to see if you will accept it to avoid the stress and costs of legal action. Whilst this all seems very mean spirited and unfair, but when lots of money is involved fairness and natural justice are the first to go.

If the S-type driver was speeding, there may be an argument that there is a contributory negligence issue, that the back seat pasenger's injuries would not have been so severe if the car was travelling more slowly. Still doesn't leave the Co-op in a good light and you'd expect the two insurers to sort it out between themselves. This sort of case is often settled at the door of the courtroom, a case of seeing who blinks first.

 

Barrister friends have told me that neither side actually likes to end up in court in these cases because that's such a gamble depending on the mood and attitude of the judge.

[pearlygeoff]

If I remember rightly CRT refused to renew Mr Geoff's license for peristent overstaying, when he had what he considered a reasonable excuse.

 

CRT applied to the court for a Section 8 and Mr Geoff expected this to be his chance to argue the toss before a judge, but what actually happened was the application was rubber stamped due to the indisputable fact that there was no licence. The court was not prepared to listen to the reasons for this and the boat was lifted out.

 

Spitefully (some say), CRT then transported the (wooden) boat to somewhere miles away and knowingly stored it out of the water so the hull dried out and could not be re-launched without sinking.

 

Once again not accurate. If you're going to comment on my situation at least get the facts right. You do this by reading what I have written - that's how you learn things, you do the research.

 

This thread relates to litigation, in that light you (as in y'all) might like to read my information about court transcripts and the letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

You don't get good information from hearsay and gossip which most people seem to rely on (I could say especially women but that would only set Arthur off again).

[Chewbacka]

 

Once again not accurate. If you're going to comment on my situation at least get the facts right. You do this by reading what I have written - that's how you learn things, you do the research.

 

This thread relates to litigation, in that light you (as in y'all) might like to read my information about court transcripts and the letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

You don't get good information from hearsay and gossip which most people seem to rely on (I could say especially women but that would only set Arthur off again).

If my wife saw the above comment, it would certainly set her off as well. Then I would suffer for the next hour, so best you don't say it again - please.

[Jerra]

You don't get good information from hearsay and gossip which most people seem to rely on (I could say especially women but that would only set Arthur off again).

As a matter of interest how do you tell that what is written in a blog is anything more than hearsay, gossip or at least biased?

[magictime]

You don't get good information from hearsay and gossip which most people seem to rely on (I could say especially women but that would only set Arthur off again).

 

How right you are. Previously, Arthur's claim about your misogyny was just 'hearsay' and so I was loath too place too much weight on it. Now you've very kindly confirmed that you are indeed a sexist idiot, which saves me the trouble of spending any more time exploring the labyrinth of long-winded ramblings that is your website, trying to work out whether there is any legitimate grievance at its centre.

[Guest]

Once again not accurate. If you're going to comment on my situation at least get the facts right. You do this by reading what I have written - that's how you learn things, you do the research.

 

This thread relates to litigation, in that light you (as in y'all) might like to read my information about court transcripts and the letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

You don't get good information from hearsay and gossip which most people seem to rely on (I could say especially women but that would only set Arthur off again).

 

Actually you DID say, the insertion of could doesn't make your comment invisible as evidenced above. I was trying to read your case with an impartial view but boy do you have an axe to grind. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and do the actual research on whether women rely on gossip or hearsay? Perhaps come back with some solid proof on that?

[Machpoint005]

 

How right you are. Previously, Arthur's claim about your misogyny was just 'hearsay' and so I was loath too place too much weight on it. Now you've very kindly confirmed that you are indeed a sexist idiot, which saves me the trouble of spending any more time exploring the labyrinth of long-winded ramblings that is your website, trying to work out whether there is any legitimate grievance at its centre.

 

I'm glad it wasn't just me, with all my prejudices...

[WotEver]

 

I'm glad it wasn't just me, with all my prejudices...

Oh no, it's not just you. The word 'concise' appears to be missing from the OP's lexicon.

[mayalld]

 

There is an (anecdotal) story of a Rolls Royce being shipped to the USA. It was insured for the journey, as it was being unloaded one of the strops slipped and the car plummeted onto the quayside from height.

 

The insurance company politely responded that the car was insured for the sea crossing and the policy ceased as soon as any part of the vehicle touched American soil. The fact that, at this point, the car was intact meant that the vehicle was in good order at the point where their liability ended...

 

It sounds entirely believable, but I can relate another story where the exact same kind of argument worked against an insurance company, and this isn't something that happened to "a friend of a friend", it is something that I was directly personally involved in.

 

As many here will know, my stepson was killed in Afghanistan in 2010 by an IED.

 

His mum and I were his Executors and trustees of bequests to minors, and it fell to us to settle his estate, which in common with many soldiers involved a good deal of work with insurance companies, because there is no shortage of insurance companies doing a roaring trade selling insurance to squaddies, and Harvey appeared to have signed up with every passing insurance salesman.

 

Most of them paid up with no hassle, but one (and I won't name them) with whom he had taken a personal accident and life policy sent a paltry sum, which was indeed the amount in the policy as "Death Benefit".

 

The death benefit was, in fact, much less than just about every other benefit in the policy (a broken finger paid out more).

 

So, we took the insurer to the Ombudsman, and argued that as a result of the explosion that killed him, Harvey had suffered a number of other injuries (I won't enumerate the injuries here), and that as there was no proof that those injuries had occurred after he died, it was reasonable to assume that any injuries that were close to the ground had occurred before death. As the policy contained no provisions as to how long the insured must survive with an injury to be entitled to benefit, the ombudsman agreed that they had to pay out.

[WotEver]

A sad story Dave but with a satisfying message.

[Machpoint005]

Oh no, it's not just you. The word 'concise' appears to be missing from the OP's lexicon.

 

Some years ago I was being cross-examined at a Public Inquiry and the QC said that my report was worded too concisely for him to be sure he understood it properly.

 

So you can go too far the other way!

A sad story Dave but with a satisfying message.

 

Agreed -- and a good job it was the Ombudsman and not m'learned friend...