Holiday accident compensation

ThumbRemote · 20 March 2017 at 10:54AM

k3lvc wrote: »

Indeed I may be but as entitled to my opinion as others are to theirs. The child, whilst unsupervised, carried out an action that led to the injury and based on the schedules previously shared the OP has been offered above the suggested rate for 'amputation of tip of the middle or ring fingers' yet is still pushing for more.

Why have you quoted that about 'middle or ring fingers'? It was their index finger - see post 2. Have you just made it up to try and make the OP look bad, or have you decided to criticise them without even reading the thread?

TBagpuss · 20 March 2017 at 11:39AM

OP, although you were advised to cliam via thompson I think you would be wise to go back to a solicitor to get some proper advice about the appropriate level of damges here,. This may mean that the lawyer will need to see mediacal evidence of the likely long termefects for your daughter.

in terms of compensation the issue is then:

- how much should your daughter reeived for pain & suffering and loss of amentiy in the future
- how much should you receive for the curtailment and disruption of your holiday
- what out-of-pockt expenses have you had and are you / your daughter likely to have, moving forward.

For the finger, one issue would be whether this is likely to continue to be vuilnerable moving forward, is she likely to need further medical treatment etc.

takman · 20 March 2017 at 4:48PM

S1446591 wrote: »

I *did*. It was rejected and I was told (by my lawyer) to claim directly from thomsons insurers.

Is the hotel owned by Thomson? because as far as i'm aware they don't own any. If not i'm just curious why you wouldn't claim against the hotel directly because they are the ones who have been negligent?.

A missing panel that covers moving parts on a device designed to be used by children is obviously unacceptable. But it is the hotel owners who are liable for this and not Thomson.

Have you asked the Travel Insurance company if they will claim directly from the hotel?

S1446591 · 20 March 2017 at 11:22PM

takman wrote: »

Is the hotel owned by Thomson? because as far as i'm aware they don't own any. If not i'm just curious why you wouldn't claim against the hotel directly because they are the ones who have been negligent?.

A missing panel that covers moving parts on a device designed to be used by children is obviously unacceptable. But it is the hotel owners who are liable for this and not Thomson.

Have you asked the Travel Insurance company if they will claim directly from the hotel?

Because, quite simply, the travel agent (as the seller) has a duty of care under the package holiday regulations 1992, to ensure the hotel is safe and secure, and fit for purpose. And, as I understand it, Thomson have taken so long as they are negotiating withthe hotel's insurers. It's not a small hotel either, it's a big chain.

I have not asked this directly, but I guess this could be another option. I did ask if I could use the legal cover for advice on doing so and they said no because it was a package holiday (clause in there that I can't sue travel agents).

Manxman_in_exile · 24 March 2017 at 5:08PM

I've followed this thread on and off since it started. And I'm really confused by one aspect of it. That may be due to my general ignorance of travel insurance so I'd be grateful if others could enlighten me.

Why is the OP suing the travel agent rather than simply claiming from their travel insurance? Especially when that travel insurance doesn't provide legal cover to sue travel agents?

If I were going to somewhere like Mexico I would want my travel insurance to cover me for things like personal injury caused by a third party's negligence. That's because I'd want my insurers to deal with it without me having to bother with suing the third party (or travel agent?) myself.

Is this because travel insurance doesn't cover this sort of risk? Isn't this what insurance is for? I'd always assumed so.

Or is it because any pay out under the policy would be significantly lower than the OP could recover by suing?

I'm genuinely intrigued to know why it's better to go to the trouble of suing the travel agent rather than claiming under the policy. (My apologies if I've missed something so obvious that I must be blind).

peachyprice · 24 March 2017 at 5:19PM

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I've followed this thread on and off since it started. And I'm really confused by one aspect of it. That may be due to my general ignorance of travel insurance so I'd be grateful if others could enlighten me.

Why is the OP suing the travel agent rather than simply claiming from their travel insurance? Especially when that travel insurance doesn't provide legal cover to sue travel agents?

If I were going to somewhere like Mexico I would want my travel insurance to cover me for things like personal injury caused by a third party's negligence. That's because I'd want my insurers to deal with it without me having to bother with suing the third party (or travel agent?) myself.

Is this because travel insurance doesn't cover this sort of risk? Isn't this what insurance is for? I'd always assumed so.

Or is it because any pay out under the policy would be significantly lower than the OP could recover by suing?

I'm genuinely intrigued to know why it's better to go to the trouble of suing the travel agent rather than claiming under the policy. (My apologies if I've missed something so obvious that I must be blind).

Yes, you did miss something

peachyprice wrote: »

I understand that you want the best for your daughter and that she does deserve monetary compensation for the permanent loss of her fingertip, BUT, why didn't you claim for that on the personal injury section of your travel insurance? It would have been easier and quicker and you could have put the whole sorry mess behind yourselves much quicker than attempting to drag it out with TUI.

S1446591 wrote: »

I *did*. It was rejected and I was told (by my lawyer) to claim directly from thomsons insurers.

S1446591 wrote: »

No, I'm no further forward yet. Will update when I hear anything back.

No, because if I'm honest I want them to admit liability so my insurance won't achieve that. We tried to claim early curtailment too and they rejected that too. My insurance company are rubbish and needless to say, have been binned.

Manxman_in_exile · 24 March 2017 at 5:56PM

Thank you peachyprice.

So, and I'm sorry if I've missed this as well, do we know why the insurance claim was rejected? Does the policy explicitly include personal injury claims or what?

Shouldn't the OP be complaining to the insurance company and then following it up with the ombudsman or something?

I'm genuinely confused why OP is in this position.

Manxman_in_exile · 24 March 2017 at 8:16PM

The more I think about this the more I think the OP is going down the wrong route.

If I'd been the OP I'd have challenged the insurers as to what policy exclusion they were relying on to evade liability. I'm assuming personal injury was covered by the policy but I've not seen the T&Cs or exclusions.

I would then have made a formal complaint and exhausted that process (or time limits if applicable) before referring the complaint to the ombudsman. Only if I had then failed to get a satisfactory result would I have resorted to suing the travel agent. That's because when you get to the stage of suing people you don't know what the outcome will be unless you have a cast iron case. The travel agent may have a statutory duty to provide a safe environment, but can the OP be sure that the travel agent cannot demonstrate that they've met this duty?

The OP says that they've "binned" the insurers because they're "useless". I'd go back to the insurers and complain as above because I think that might be the best way of getting this sorted without all of the stress and hassle of suing Thompsons.

I'm not trying to hijack this thread but I think the OP is going down the wrong route.

(Edit: If I were the OP I'd consider posting on the insurance board. There may be posters there with more relevant knowledge who do not stray onto the consumer board.)

peachyprice · 25 March 2017 at 10:38AM

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Thank you peachyprice.

So, and I'm sorry if I've missed this as well, do we know why the insurance claim was rejected? Does the policy explicitly include personal injury claims or what?

Shouldn't the OP be complaining to the insurance company and then following it up with the ombudsman or something?

I'm genuinely confused why OP is in this position.

Yes, that's what I though, and even suggested earlier. Maybe OP was under-insured, or didn't have personal accident. Does seem strange that they rejected a clear cut claim.

And I'm guessing the amount OP has been offered by the tour operator is the equivalent of a standard insurance pay out if the claim had been successful, which would be why they won't move on it, and why OP would be unlikely to get any more in court.

Edit:
Just checked an annual policy I have running at the moment, if you only have the economy cover max payout for bodily injury/loss of limb is £5k.

ThumbRemote · 25 March 2017 at 1:16PM

peachyprice wrote: »

And I'm guessing the amount OP has been offered by the tour operator is the equivalent of a standard insurance pay out if the claim had been successful, which would be why they won't move on it, and why OP would be unlikely to get any more in court.

I don't think this would be the case. I can't see that the tour operator / hotel could limit their own liability based on insurance that one of their customers may or may not have had. For starters, there's no such thing as a standard industry pay out (different policies will have different levels), and it would also mean your level of compensation would depend purely on your level of cover, not on the magnitude of the injury - which goes against the whole point of financial compensation for bodily injury.

Holiday accident compensation

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free