Should First pay for this wall?

[Cyclone 10]

It's entirely possible to make a claim directly against a 3rd party or parties insurance without involving your own insurance.

The only reason to involve your own is if the 3rd party refuses to play ball.

[NERVY-OWL 195]

It's entirely possible to make a claim directly against a 3rd party or parties insurance without involving your own insurance.

The only reason to involve your own is if the 3rd party refuses to play ball.

 

ah rite, fair enough. well then the first insurance should pay but thats all, certainly don't think the company should pay out of their own pocket

[Cyclone 10]

As I've now repeated about a dozen times, 1st are effectively their own insurers, they carry an excess of millions over the course of a year (it isn't per incident, it's across the entire year). Every incident they pay out for comes from their bottom line.

[denlin 12]

First cannot be held responsible for act of what amounts to theft, whether the idiots who let handbrake off broke in or simply opened door they knew exactly what they were doing and could have killed somebody. I feel for person whose wall was damaged and they are in a catch 22 situation as are bus company. I'm sure they could come to some compromise with mainline- maybe go 50/50

[iansheff 88]

First shouldn't pay! It wasn't their fault. Won't the ladies home insurance cover it??

 

Why should she claim on her home insurance and lose any no claims bonus, it was nothing at all to do with her, she didn't release the brake.

[Alex C. 10]

Why should the householder lose their no claims? The bus belongs to First, they should pay regardless of whether it was intentional or not.

 

If a car was stolen and did the same, the car owner's insurance would foot the bill.

 

I'm sure First could be found neglectful for leaving the bus in an insecure condition.

 

I'm not so sure it would be different if it was a car. Although the rules between motor insurers are fairly clear cut, I'm not sure how this affects household policies - technically, unless there has been negligence, then there is no right to damages, and in this case it doesn't appear that first have been negligent.

 

A non motor example would be if your neighbours went away for a weekend, and a pipe burst causing extensive damage to your house. Unless you could prove that they had been negligence (very difficult if they've acted promptly once being made aware of the problem), you would most likely lose your NCD and see a premium hike as well.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Alex C.

[HeadingNorth 11]

surely First cover the wall on their insurance

 

The woman whose wall has been damaged, refuses to go through insurance. She wants to First to write her the cheque out themselves; which is what First are refusing to do.

[qazitory 10]

What if the bus had hit a another car, or worst case ran a person down.... who would pay out then? Surely it would be First's insurers??? It makes no difference it was a wall, the bus is owned and insured by First.

 

Also it would have been worth them paying out the £1000 as this is really bad publicity for them!!

[Alex C. 10]

What if the bus had hit a another car, or worst case ran a person down.... who would pay out then? Surely it would be First's insurers??? It makes no difference it was a wall, the bus is owned and insured by First.

 

Also it would have been worth them paying out the £1000 as this is really bad publicity for them!!

 

It could make a big difference if it is a wall.

 

Legally, for you to become liable in a case like this, there has to be negligence.

 

I understand the Motor Insurance industry has it's own way of dealing with this issue in a fair way, but I'm not sure if it extends beyond that industry.

[HeadingNorth 11]

What if the bus had hit a another car, or worst case ran a person down.... who would pay out then? Surely it would be First's insurers???

 

 

If the person hit refuses to go through insurance, then it wouldn't be anybody; just as in this case.

[qazitory 10]

But you didn't (nor should you feel like you have to) add anything extra or remove any piece of hardware in order to make your vehicle safe so why should First?

 

Don't rely on standard equipment? Was your car custom built nuts and bolts and all?

 

Oh dear - do you live in the real world??

 

First should be responsible for their own buses, and if any damaged is caused, their insurers should pay out! A bus can't be locked I believe, so they are responsible for making sure that a bus a left in a safe place and cannot be moved. Obviuosly that didn't happen, so First are to blame.

[qazitory 10]

If the person hit refuses to go through insurance, then it wouldn't be anybody; just as in this case.

 

They haven't refused to go through insurance? They don't want to claim on theirs as it will affect their no claims discount.