Is a stroke an "Act of God"

nac

An elderly lady rammed my car and insurance company won't pay out as they say she had a stroke and that is an "act of god". The lady is fine, but I am £3,000 out of pocket - anything I can do?

McKneff

Which insurance company wont pay out, hers or yours.

You claim for your damage on your insurance, they then claim on hers
insurance, thats what you pay them for.

dmg24

Here is an interesting perspective issue on the subject from a US attorney (the same principles apply here), and I can understand the reasoning:

In order to prove liability for a car accident for which an insurance company must pay for damages caused by its insured, you must prove negligence. Negligence is defined as the breach of a legal duty owed another which proximately causes that person's damages.
Question: how is the driver negligent? He didn't know that he had a medical condition. He did not do anything illegal or improper. He was driving his car when seized by a previously-unknown condition. This easily qualifies as a "freak accident."
There is no negligence. Since the insurer's liability is based upon the negligence of its insured, then there is no coverage here. The insured was not negligent. Therefore, his insurance company is not liable.

raskazz

dmg24 wrote: »

Here is an interesting perspective issue on the subject from a US attorney (the same principles apply here), and I can understand the reasoning:

That sums up the situation pretty well.

nac

Understood, however, the lady DID have previous medical problems. This has been advised to us by someone who knows her, we're hoping that medical records will also show this.

dacouch

This might explain the situation (Its a bit biased as its from a firm of No Win No Fee Solicitors)

If a person has a sudden heart attack whilst driving a car and causes an accident resulting in death for injury to others there may not be any claim for compensation.

To succeed in a claim for death or personal injury involving an incident where a heart attack or stroke has occurred to a driver, the victim must prove negligence or blame before compensation can be paid. The injured person or the representatives on behalf of the deceased must prove there was fault on behalf of the driver who suffered from a medical condition. If there was no history of any heart complaint or other medical condition that would affect that person’s ability to drive safely there may not be any claim for compensation. The accident victim or representative of the deceased could possibly claim if the driver knew or ought to have known that the medical condition may affect his or her ability to drive a car safely or was feeling unwell shortly before the car accident. Proof will be needed and witness statements passengers and independent witness will be crucial in addition to obtaining details of the medical history of the driver who suffered from the heart attack, stroke or other medical condition.

Whilst heart attacks and strokes causing a driver behind the wheel to lose control of a car giving rise to injury or death are statistically rare, nevertheless the consequences can be devastating. Whilst Insurance Companies for the driver may look upon claims by accident victims sympathetically nevertheless it still means that there is a discretion by the Insurance company to award any compensation.

Accident victims who have sustained injury or death from a driver who suffers from a heart attack, stroke or other medical condition that affects their ability to driver a car safely may be faced with a complete defence by the driver’s Insurer called “automatism” or involuntary action. It is said that it is not the driver’s fault to have a heart attack behind the wheel, but it does happen and the law should be changed to bring in no-fault accident compensation claims.

The issue of no fault accident claims have been discussed and mooted for many years but the law still remains. An accident victim who has sustained an injury or death still needs to prove fault on behalf of the other driver. In other Countries such as New Zealand and some states in America no fault systems have been in operation that would lessen the impact upon accident death victims and their families.

No fault accident change in the law has been raised periodically through the Motor Accident Injury Compensation Bill, introduced in both 1998 and 1999 but the law has not been passed and innocent injury victims and family dependents of the deceased are left without redress and compensation.

Contrast the injustice on having to prove fault against a driver with a medical condition to that of the Motor Insurer Bureau (MIB) which is a general compensation fund set up to compensate victims of motor accidents where the person “at fault” does not have insurance or is untraced as he or she fails to stop at the scene of the accident. If this occurs the MIB will pay the victim compensation. Contrast further another Scheme set up to compensate victims of crime who suffer injury or death under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). Again compensation is available to victims.

As the number of victims injured or killed on the road due to automatism from heart attacks, strokes or other medical conditions are relatively rare there should no doubt be a change in the law to compensate innocent victims. The fund set aside by insurers to compensative victims will be relatively low due to the numbers involved and will make a life changing difference to the victims and family dependent of the deceased.
To do nothing is a continuing injustice to the victims and their families.

http://motorbikeclaims.org.uk/articles/1878/1/No-Fault-Accident-Compensation/Page1.html

nac

Thanks for your info

mattymoo

dacouch wrote: »

Whilst heart attacks and strokes causing a driver behind the wheel to lose control of a car giving rise to injury or death are statistically rare, nevertheless the consequences can be devastating. Whilst Insurance Companies for the driver may look upon claims by accident victims sympathetically nevertheless it still means that there is a discretion by the Insurance company to award any compensation.

I'm pretty certain that we used to deal with these claims when I dealt with this kind of thing in the early 90's. It was a rare occurence and in a case load of around 10,000 cases (over 4 yrs) I only ever came across a couple of incidents where the medical situation was completely unforeseable. We compensated the injured third parties in full.

The view at that time was that a) it was bad publicity for the industry and b) the policyholder had suffered anyway and we did not wish to add to this with contested legal claims.

I seem to recall it was a gentlemans agreement between the major insurers at that time (CU, GA, NU, Sun Alliance and Royal etc) to handle claims in this way.

No doubt the new players in the market are happy to ignore such agreements though.

Nac - If they are going to make you fight this it could be tricky. You may have to issue legal procedings to get the insurers to submit their policyholders medical records as a defence. If these are clear, they have a valid defence. If as you suspect they had an ongoing related condition that affected their ability to drive then the defence would fold. I'd speak to a solicitor if I were you.

dacouch

I think your right, there used to be a gentlemans agreememt but it does not seem to be in place now days. It also seems to depend on the Insurer whether they decide to pay.

I dealt with one for a client who had a wall knocked down and the car Insurer paid on that one.

cocktail

'act of god'--havent heard of that one.
of course they should pay thats what insurance is for.
which company?

dacouch

Coctail read the previous posts, they don't neccessarily have to pay under UK law, its optional whether they pay in most circumstances