Is a stroke an "Act of God"

olly300

cocktail wrote: »

'act of god'--havent heard of that one.

It's in all insurance policies I suggest you read the ones you have got.

Viper_7

If a tree was struck by lightening and fell on my car- the insurance would pay out, and that is an act of god.
This is accidental damage. The lady didn't mean to have a stroke, she wasn't negligent it was an unforseen event causing an accident.
Of course insurers should pay out, what is the ruddy point otherwise? no wonder people don't bother.


Also... and I totally forget what it's called - isn't there a bucket of money for cases like this that all insurers pay into, to cover for people who arn't insured and the "victim" needs to claim off something.

Astaroth

You kind of have to take the insurers out of the equation as they act on behalf of the first and third party.

The question is really, if I have a stroke and cause an accident whilst having the stroke should I have to pay for the damage caused to others? The courts decide on the tort of negligence (ie doing something that a reasonable person wouldn't or failing to do something that a reasonable person would do)

If you think that having had a stroke I should pay you for the damage then the insurance company will step in and pay up. If you dont think I am at fault because a reasonable person wouldnt have done any different whilst having a stroke then there is no claim against the insurer.



The lightening is different because it is your own car that you are claiming for, which is accidental damage which includes acts of god. You could not sue the tree owner for the damage to your car because it is not his fault the lightening struck it so you couldnt claim off their home insurance
That is the law and is what the insurer is bound by. That said there is always the second angle which is PR/ corporate image which may mean that they decide to settle the came on a without prejudice basis but this is generally a simple mathematical formula of estimate the cost of the claim, estimate the PR damage of not paying and pay the lesser.

lisyloo

If a tree was struck by lightening and fell on my car- the insurance would pay out

Your own comprehensive insurance would pay out if you wanted to claim on it.
This is talking about claiming on another persons insurance.

I can assure you that if some tiles feel off a roof in a storm and there was no negligence then the house owners insurance would not pay out.
You could claim off your OWN comprehensive insurance of course, but a 3rd party insurer would not compensate you (where there was no negligence).

Of course insurers should pay out, what is the ruddy point otherwise?

Depends which insurance you are talking about.
3rd party insurers will only pay out if they are liable.
You need to make the distinction between your own insurance and when you are asking someone else's insurance to pay.

isn't there a bucket of money for cases like this that all insurers pay into

MIB.
Mainly it covers you if the third party is uninsured or untraceable.
If they aren't liable in the first place then I'm not certain but I don't think it would cover you.

FlameCloud

olly300 wrote: »

It's in all insurance policies I suggest you read the ones you have got.

I'd be surprised if a wording actually mentioned these words!

mattymoo

lisyloo wrote: »

MIB.
Mainly it covers you if the third party is uninsured or untraceable.
If they aren't liable in the first place then I'm not certain but I don't think it would cover you.

First of all there has to be a legal liability to pay (as decided by the courts) before the MIB will kick in. They do this by allowing a case to proceed to trial and allow judgement to be obtained against the uninsured motorist. If that judgement is not settled within 7 days the MIB pays on behalf of the uninsured motorist.

So Lisyloo is correct - no legal case in Tort = no payment from the MIB or any other insurer covering third party liabilities for that matter.

Proc

'Act of God'.

I'll try that one next time I'm in an accident; "But, but, it wasn't me, it was my imaginary friend. He made me do it".

mattymoo

Proc wrote: »

'Act of God'.

I'll try that one next time I'm in an accident; "But, but, it wasn't me, it was my imaginary friend. He made me do it".

That was the holy spirit - he's not covered by the exclusion

lisyloo

I'll try that one next time I'm in an accident; "But, but, it wasn't me, it was my imaginary friend. He made me do it".

There are certainly situation in which you would not find yourself liable, so it can work in your favour.
e.g. let's say tiles fall off your roof in a freak storm and your roof is adequately maintained.
Then anyone affected will not be able to claim off you.

So, yes, does work both ways.

Similarly if you open your windows whilst playing music and startle a horse that you can't see, that unseats the rides, then you are not liable.

etc. etc.

pedro123456

This is a definition of an “act of God”

Act of God is a legal term[1] for events outside of human control, such as sudden floods or other natural disasters, for which no one can be held responsible. This does not protect those who put others in danger of acts of nature through negligence, such as an adult who instructs a group of children to unbuckle their seat belts so they can be "thrown clear" of an accident.

The Insurance Company use this to avoid paying out of course, there are many other instances they could use it for too, outside human control open them many doors.

However, “now the woman is fine”, I would suspect that if she had Critical Illness cover she wouldn’t have met their definition of a stroke, and again the IC avoid paying.

So in answer to your question nac, “is a stroke a act of god” the answer is yes if it suits the IC, and no if it doesn’t suit the IC, sadly the IC are the Judge & Jury .:mad:

Of course the IC should pay up morally as this is why you pay your premiums “unforeseen circumstances” ……but the IC are there to protect profits and sod the premium payer.

You can of course complain to the Ombudsman, but my guess is you wont, as some have suggested that “legally” the IC are correct as it wasn’t deemed to be negligence.

Now my viewpoint would be this “did the stroke cause the accident or did the accident cause the stroke? why don’t you consider taking legal advice and ask their opinion.


Ello lads have you missed me?