Can they take our house

born_again

Jumblebumble said:

The ombudsman's decision is law
I am not a lawyer and have no idea what happens to court cases if a complainant is waiting for the ombudsman to rule.

Sadly it is not....
>>But the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has said some of those policies may cover losses from the pandemic.

It will now ask a court to decide whether insurers should be made to pay.<<

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52498327

452

SuperHan said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?  Reading mattyprice4004 and pinkshoes, am I to understand that it is commonplace for car insurance policies to exclude liability for negligence?  (ie the insurer will pay out to a third party but can still recover the costs of any claim from the insured).

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but doesn't that sort of negate the point of having the insurance?  Apart from the fact that it's a legal requirement, the main reason I have car insurance is to protect myself from any unpleasant financial consequences in the entirely foreseeable event that I cause an accident through my own negligence.

If that were the case I would have thought a very very large number of PI and other claims arising from car accidents would end up with the insurance companies pursuing their policy holders personally.  Is that what happens and I'm not aware of it?

Do I need to look very very closely at my insurance policy to ensure it does cover me for my own negligence?

EDIT: I appreciate there's a question about "moral hazard" here, but isn't that what the excess is for?

Are you confusing an accident with negligence? These aren't the same thing. Negligence requires that you didn't take proper care. If you don't have sufficient tread on your tyres (as you've been negligent in checking), then insurance may not pay out. If you were driving under the influence (i.e. without due care, so negligent) then insurance would not pay out.

If you are unable to stop in time and hit the car in front, then that's not quite without proper care (or at least it may be difficult to prove when it was). An at-fault accident doesn't necessarily equal negligence - it could happen after you've taken all proper care to avoid said accident.

I think you're confused. 

TW1234

Hope you do take advice and don't sign that dubious document from the insurers.
The ladders were not, in themselves, a dangerous load. You just failed to secure them.
Negligence requires a lack of appropriate action, often over a period of time,and normally under circumstances which would clearly lead to an adverse incident if reasonable consideration were given to the matter.. (eg failure to maintain a vehicle, or using old unchecked security ties for the ladders.).
A momentary lapse of concentration may be careless, but sufficient to cause a similar incident and it is for the insurers to prove that such was negligent.
I doubt that you have a history of failing to secure the ladders, so you have given consideration to the need for security,so an isolated, brief lapse is more likely.

Spank

They can take your house, but they will never take your freedom.

452

TW1234 said:

Hope you do take advice and don't sign that dubious document from the insurers.
The ladders were not, in themselves, a dangerous load. You just failed to secure them.
Negligence requires a lack of appropriate action, often over a period of time,and normally under circumstances which would clearly lead to an adverse incident if reasonable consideration were given to the matter.. (eg failure to maintain a vehicle, or using old unchecked security ties for the ladders.).
A momentary lapse of concentration may be careless, but sufficient to cause a similar incident and it is for the insurers to prove that such was negligent.
I doubt that you have a history of failing to secure the ladders, so you have given consideration to the need for security,so an isolated, brief lapse is more likely.

Isn't an unsecured set of ladders that comes off a vehicle dangerous in your opinion?

TW1234

No. The ladders are not dangerous. (cf a stack of furniture beyond the load carrying capacity of the vehicle)
The insurers are trying to say that the policy did not cover an otherwise  reasonable action that had a (tiny) component of carelessness and such was beyond that to be expected of a normal driver.

452

TW1234 said:

No. The ladders are not dangerous. (cf a stack of furniture beyond the load carrying capacity of the vehicle)
The insurers are trying to say that the policy did not cover an otherwise  reasonable action that had a (tiny) component of carelessness and such was beyond that to be expected of a normal driver.

The ladders if unsecured were dangerous as they were likely to come off. Not fastening them is more than a tiny component of carelessness. 

TW1234

I look forward to hearing the final outcome

Jumblebumble

born_again said:

Jumblebumble said:

The ombudsman's decision is law
I am not a lawyer and have no idea what happens to court cases if a complainant is waiting for the ombudsman to rule.

Sadly it is not....
>>But the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has said some of those policies may cover losses from the pandemic.

It will now ask a court to decide whether insurers should be made to pay.<<

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52498327

My understanding is that insurance companies have agreed to the ombudsman's decisions in most cases so perhaps Law was the wrong word but I think the outcome in this case which has nothing to do with  Covid 19 would be the same if the ombudsman directed the insurers to pony up.

born_again

Insurance co's & Banks will abide by ombudsman decision, but can challenge them by asking for it to be reviewed, as can a consumer.
But just as a consumer can, if still not happy go to court for a judgement, so could a Insurance co or Bank. Though they would have to be 100% certain on winning. Given how a court would view the case & the massive costs.