Accidental Dmage cover laugh

pedro123456

No It aint cogito English is good for me.
" sudden external means" is double dutch to me, and I would bet it is for almost every other policy paying policy holder.

I am at a loss to see :

1- What it actually means?
2- How/Why this "sudden external means" become a part of a definition of accidental?

So go on then explain (if you can) lets see how bright you are
And please try to refrain from insults, I know its hard ,but try

Soubrette

pedro123456 wrote: »

No It aint cogito English is good for me.
" sudden external means" is double dutch to me, and I would bet it is for almost every other policy paying policy holder.

I am at a loss to see :

1- What it actually means?
2- How/Why this "sudden external means" become a part of a definition of accidental?

So go on then explain (if you can) lets see how bright you are
And please try to refrain from insults, I know its hard ,but try

I actually thought English was your second language too (and I'd love to speak a second language as good as your English so it wasn't an insult) because a few people have posted puns or jokes which you seem to have totally missed, I assumed it was because English wasn't your first language so apologies for that. :o

BTW I'm a great believer in self insurance

Sou

OshayAway

The annoying thing about quoting Pedro is that I can read his spoutings even though he's on my ignore list!

pedro123456

Who said that?:rotfl: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

rudekid48

Pedro, I know you like a good old row with your "insurance bods", but the definition of accidental damage isn't what caused the OP to have their claim rejected. It was because they didn't have accidental damage cover on their policy.

Also, this is the wrong thread to get into the whole argument about whether wordings or definitions are in plain english, as the OP has already stated that on their schedule it said "Accidental Damage Included: NO" (that may not be the exact quote but it's further up the thread).

Now lets be honest, you can't get much more plain english than "NO".

I'm sure that you'll want to respond, but please don't ask me to define the meaning of "NO", because if you do, my answer will be..........NO

OshayAway

Are you addressing the same pedro I'm thinking of who would argue black is white and insult anyone who disagrees with him?

You know the one, he's always on the lookout for things to use as toilet paper because of his never ending verbal diarrhea problem!

dunstonh

Are you addressing the same pedro I'm thinking of who would argue black is white and insult anyone who disagrees with him?

Pedro would only argue black is white if an insurance company told him that or someone in financial services. If a consumer told him black was white he would side with them and blame the insurer.

That is why many of us have him on ignore. You can't discuss anything without him going off on an anti-insurer rant.

pedro123456

Rudekid,

I am perfectly aware of the original post, my input is merely looking at if accidental cover is value, does it do what its supposed to do that’s all.

In order to assess the value/or not of accidental cover I maintain we the policy payer have to understand what it offers, we the policy holder are told to read all the policy details, and in this case we are supposed to understand the definition.

So the definition is 'Unexpected and unintended damage caused by sudden and external means'

Now I say we the policy holder find that definition confusing, you are you buddies say it self explanatory, we can’t both be right can we?

This is just (IMO) a typical way of hiding a loophole within what should be a perfectly simple definition, without going over your head (if this does) a definition of accidental damage should not include a cause.

But no doubt you and the other Insurance bods profess to know better (without substantiating your claim of clarity), carry on it doesn’t matter to me.

All I’m asking is for you lot to clarify a definition and you can’t do so.

But then again you won’t be able to, they were probably knocked up by Barristers (paid for by the policy holders premiums) :mad:

FlameCloud

pedro123456 wrote: »

But then again you won’t be able to, they were probably knocked up by Barristers (paid for by the policy holders premiums) :mad:

Wow, there's a shocker. A legally binding contract drawn up by people with legal qualifications. Next thing you'll be telling me is that they have accountants to do their sums for them?

If you are unable to grasp the wording of the policies you are easily able to seek advise from an insurance professional who will assist you in obtaining the correct cover for your needs.

pedro123456

"A legally binding contract drawn up by people with legal qualifications", definition dear boy, I never mentioned contract.

"If you are unable to grasp the wording of the policies you are easily able to seek advise from an insurance professional"

Flamecloud it appears to me that you and your buddies just keep avoiding the questions, why do I find that predictable? is it because you cant answer? aint you and ya mates Insurance professionals? :rotfl::rotfl:

not to worry lets drop it for a while, you just carry on :rotfl::rotfl: