R
If a cyclist hits your car when you are driving, the cyclist can take a claim against your insurance policy for any damage to the bike or injury to the person. Regardless of who is at fault, most insurance companies will settle with the claimant as the extortionate fees charge by our wigged legal types in defending a case will, in most cases, far exceed any claim by the third party. Welcome to the real world.
Peteb, have you ever heard of the legal concept of contributory negligence.
If there is contributory negligence on the part of the motorist, ( which given the sparse facts relating to the circumstances of the incident, is not conclusive ) then no matter if the pedestrian or cyclist is high on drugs, the insurance company will pay out.
In relation to the last line of the above post, it is relatively common for insurance companies to settle cases ( without the consent of the policyholder ) even where the policyholder is in the right. Look at those sneaky terms and conditions in your motor insurance policy, the insurance company reserves this right.
I obviously know more about how insurance works than you doRebuttal, I'm very familiar with the concept. You should probably read a bit more of other posts by other people before you throw in silly questions in such a manner.
As Leo has said in reference to your other point, its very rare. Have you heard of how insurance works??
I obviously know more about how insurance works that you do
Categoric crap. Its actually more likely that a cyclist's (and veering away from it being a child) personal liability under their household contents cover will pay out the claim made by the motorist against the cyclist.
Ireland and the UK have the same common law legal systems, so the same principles of law apply in both Countries. Hence courts in this Country can rely on legal precedents and determinations in the UK. I would have expected an insurance expert like yourself to have known this very basic fact.
I obviously know more about how insurance works that you do
Claims will be considered for the cost of repairing/replacing your vehicle (comprehensively insured policyholders precluded), hire charges, loss of use and property damage. An injured party can also claim for treatment and/or rehabilitation for pain and suffering. Legal costs are paid in full by the MIB once the claim is proven.
Cultural differences between jurisdictions affects insurance covers outside of your common law.
As I said, not really interest in pig-tailing pulling fight. So roll on.
I don't care if you don't like hearing the truth about the matter, facts is, from your posts, I definitely do know more about insurance and how it works.Such baseless statements do nothing to strengthen your argument.
Thanks for that link mathepac, wasn't aware of it. Differs from our MIBI scheme though in that:
Friend of mine got caught out on it a few years ago.
@Rebuttal, while it is true that the higher courts here do ocassionally entertain the use of UK judgements as precedent they do not necessarily follow them as although both systems (along with Aus, Canada and a few others) use Common Law, they have (obviously) many different laws.
Mrs Vimes,
If you read a history book the English ruled over this Country for 800 years odd.
When we became a separate sovereign Country, we imported all this English law onto our statute and renamed it.
The common law principles remained the same and still do to this day.
Fact. Whether you like it or not.
There is no real significant difference between how an insurance assessor or loss adjuster looks at an insurance claim in this Country or in the UK.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?