Car Crash - Child Injury claim

poet123

I would certainly claim if injuries had been sustained, but imo minor bruising does not fall into that category. Kids sustain bruising every day which isn't ligament damage, and I am sure that if that had been the case the OP would have said so. The compensation culture damages us all and we all pay through higher premiums, not just those who make the claim.

Ellogg

Ok I didn't know there were so many doctors on this forum, all being able to diagnose minor bruising as not claim worthy. The children who are 7 & 4 went into see the specialist doctor and like adults claimed sleepless nights, required sleeping pills, whiplash etc. etc. as normal 7 & 4 year olds would. Come on people get a grip sorry I forgot all you do gooders out there never claimed a thing in there lives I didn't ask for your opinion asked for help and advice which some decent people do give thanks to them.

Ellogg

mikey72

poet123 wrote: »

I would certainly claim if injuries had been sustained, but imo minor bruising does not fall into that category. Kids sustain bruising every day which isn't ligament damage, and I am sure that if that had been the case the OP would have said so. The compensation culture damages us all and we all pay through higher premiums, not just those who make the claim.

If the insurer wasn't driving the bandwagon, maybe we wouldn't be keen to jump on. Until then, I can see no problem with using the system they provide to compensate for losses and injury.

poet123

This is a forum, if you make a post you will get opinion, some of which you will probably not like.....such is the nature of a forum. I made comments based on your initial post, now, the injuries seemed to have escalated. I am entitled to my opinion, and for your information I have never claimed for anything of that nature because I have never sustained injuries which warranted it. I have been in a couple of crashes (no fault) and I made no claims because fortunately I was not injured and I would not work the system in that way. It is entirely up to you how you act, but given the detail in the OP I stand by my comments.

poet123

mikey72 wrote: »

If the insurer wasn't driving the bandwagon, maybe we wouldn't be keen to jump on. Until then, I can see no problem with using the system they provide to compensate for losses and injury.

Nor do I if you have actually sustained such injuries.;) Just because a system exists does not mean all and sundry should use it regardless of the severity, or even the existence of injury.

mikey72

poet123 wrote: »

Nor do I if you have actually sustained such injuries.;) Just because a system exists does not mean all and sundry should use it regardless of the severity, or even the existence of injury.

It's the insurers system.
You pay your money, they run the system.
They decide how much to pay, after vetting the claim.
Every one is happy to justify the high costs to new drivers, to high cost post codes, etc, this is part of the same system, so you can't pick and choose.

poet123

mikey72 wrote: »

It's the insurers system.
You pay your money, they run the system.
They decide how much to pay, after vetting the claim.
Every one is happy to justify the high costs to new drivers, to high cost post codes, etc, this is part of the same system, so you can't pick and choose.

So you condone exaggeration or lies to get money? There is a name for that.

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

I made comments based on your initial post, now, the injuries seemed to have escalated.

It is entirely up to you how you act, but given the detail in the OP I stand by my comments.

With respect, he didn't state in the original post that the children only sustained bruising. He said that they walked away from the accident with bruising. Issues with sleeping and whiplash would only have manifested themselves either later on that day or, most likely in the case of the whiplash, the next day. Something which was pointed out in the initial replies. Standing by your initial comments as regards the injuries when there was clearly scope for the injuries to be more severe than was stated in the original post seems a little nonsensical in the circumstances.

mikey72

At the end of the day, insurance companies have the business they have promoted.
You could always set up an insurance company that doesn't pay out claims, but then I'd be advising customers to complain to the FOS.
Compensation is a reasonable claim, but it alway sparks a witchhunt by people that believe no one should dare to increase their premiums, when they re-iterate insurers excuses for premium rises.

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

With respect, he didn't state in the original post that the children only sustained bruising. He said that they walked away from the accident with bruising. Issues with sleeping and whiplash would only have manifested themselves either later on that day or, most likely in the case of the whiplash, the next day. Something which was pointed out in the initial replies. Standing by your initial comments as regards the injuries when there was clearly scope for the injuries to be more severe than was stated in the original post seems a little nonsensical in the circumstances.

At a distance of a few months from the accident it would seem reasonable for the OP to be aware of the full extent of the injuries sustained and mention them in the OP. He made his statement, from which I think we can reasonably infer that bruising was the "injury" he went on to elaborate, but only when questioned.

mikey72 wrote: »

At the end of the day, insurance companies have the business they have promoted.
You could always set up an insurance company that doesn't pay out claims, but then I'd be advising customers to complain to the FOS.
Compensation is a reasonable claim, but it alway sparks a witchhunt by people that believe no one should dare to increase their premiums, when they re-iterate insurers excuses for premium rises.

No witch hunt, just an expectation that reasonable/honest people should only claim when it is warranted, is that not reasonable?