Farmer claiming for damaged fence
Discussion
VSKeith said:
Killboy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Legally, this is an identical situation.
Is he offering to pay for a new fence, or do it himself?InitialDave said:
Clarification: Did they offer to:
- Cover the cost to the farmer of the repair themselves?
- Pay someone to come round and repair it?
- Literally do the repair themselves?
- Something else?
Next question, are they intending to put in a claim for the car or not?
- Cover the cost to the farmer of the repair themselves?
- Pay someone to come round and repair it?
- Literally do the repair themselves?
- Something else?
Next question, are they intending to put in a claim for the car or not?
Forester1965 said:
The farmer has no right to determine who will settle his claim…..
But he would have the right to claim from his own insurance for what’s he’s insuring against.. it may be he can get a new fence rather than an old one repaired.Eg we can all relate to cars!
a National farmers Union policy gives you new price if your car is less than 2yrs old & written off. if someone crashed into you when car was 23mths old & wrote it off would folk accept like for like/current market value from a third party if they could get a new motor by involving your own insurance…
Forester1965 said:
https://www.legalandgeneral.com/_resources/pdfs/in...
If the insurer did not have that right, this would defeat the requirement under the Road Traffic Act to have 3rd party insurance. Someone could cause another an injury and refuse to allow their insurer to recompense the injured party. That wouldn't make any sense.
Insurance firms are also regulated and bound by the relevant regulations.If the insurer did not have that right, this would defeat the requirement under the Road Traffic Act to have 3rd party insurance. Someone could cause another an injury and refuse to allow their insurer to recompense the injured party. That wouldn't make any sense.
They are not going to arbitrarily ignore previous notices by their regulator or findings by the ombudsman.
The ombudsman's a red herring. It doesn't set precedent or have to follow a contractual provision. Their decisions only bind the service provider in particular case and then only if the consumer in that particular case agrees with them. Their decision is based on 'what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances'. It's a low-cost, high speed arbitration service as an alternative to court.
VSKeith said:
Killboy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Legally, this is an identical situation.
Is he offering to pay for a new fence, or do it himself?ATG said:
When asked the sort of questions that can't be answered pretty accurately by summarising the top 10 hits on Google, ChatGPT can give you a fairly nicely written answer by most people's standards, but the facts may well be baloney, because how on earth is it supposed to know better? So you can use its output as a style guide or template if you need to produce a written answer and don't mind sounding a bit formulaic, but you can't rely on it knowing what it's taking about.
This is the strong impression I've got too. Until recently I'd heard a lot about ChatGPT and how it was going to make me redundant in a matter of years but I hadn't actually seen it in action. However I (a lawyer who works in the insurance industry funnily enough), was asked to cast my eye over some ChatGPT-generated documents that a client's marketing department had put together. They were all to do with how taking out a certain financial product might impact on the state benefits you were entitled to. The documents were quite well written, accessible to the layman, plausible enough...and almost completely wrong. I mean riddled with basic errors from start to finish. But if you'd had to ask the question you wouldn't know that. I've seen a few other examples since and while they haven't all been quite as bad as those first ones I saw there's not been a single one that I'd have been happy for a client to publish - at best they've been misleading but were more often still just plain wrong. So I reckon I'm OK for a good few years yet.As to the fence/car/insurance question - the correct answer has been given plenty of times already on this thread so I doubt me repeating it is going to change anybody's minds.
Roger Irrelevant said:
This is the strong impression I've got too. Until recently I'd heard a lot about ChatGPT and how it was going to make me redundant in a matter of years but I hadn't actually seen it in action. However I (a lawyer who works in the insurance industry funnily enough), was asked to cast my eye over some ChatGPT-generated documents that a client's marketing department had put together. They were all to do with how taking out a certain financial product might impact on the state benefits you were entitled to. The documents were quite well written, accessible to the layman, plausible enough...and almost completely wrong. I mean riddled with basic errors from start to finish. But if you'd had to ask the question you wouldn't know that. I've seen a few other examples since and while they haven't all been quite as bad as those first ones I saw there's not been a single one that I'd have been happy for a client to publish - at best they've been misleading but were more often still just plain wrong. So I reckon I'm OK for a good few years yet.
As to the fence/car/insurance question - the correct answer has been given plenty of times already on this thread so I doubt me repeating it is going to change anybody's minds.
It's funny criticising "ChatGPT" when it gave you all the right answer in this case! And a useful hint for the dinosaurs... you should differentiate between the different versions ...there are is a gulf of difference between say GPT3.5, GPT4 and a fine-tuned model. When you have tried a fine-tuned model, trained on your own company's specific documents, I think you will change your mind as to how much of a threat it is.As to the fence/car/insurance question - the correct answer has been given plenty of times already on this thread so I doubt me repeating it is going to change anybody's minds.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Killboy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I've already said that's unacceptable, and the farmer is entitled to have it repaired by a professional contractor of his choice.
And if the kid won't pay? Poor farmer.Gareth79 said:
Reading between the lines, I think the dispute is that the friend's son wants to repair the fence himself personally for just the cost of materials and time (presumably very little £).
The farmer wants to put in a claim for £thousands and then repair it himself personally for just the cost of materials and time (presumably very little £).
Possibly. Or the kid does not want to claim anything and just buy a new car, and pretend it never happened, whilst farmer may think his insurance needs to know just how incapable the lad is at driving down a road. The farmer wants to put in a claim for £thousands and then repair it himself personally for just the cost of materials and time (presumably very little £).
OverSteery said:
Gary C said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The farmer can insist his fence is repaired to a decent standard but he can't demand driver's insurance pays for it. The insurance is there to pick up the bills for damage caused by their policyholder/driver, but only if their policyholder/driver asks them to. The policyholder/driver is quite entitled to pay for the damage himself.
Of course he canUse the MIDB and make a claim for loss. Just needs the reg of the car
Might be harder to prove but he has the right to claim no matter what the insured desires.
His dad owned a bodyshop and tried hard to get me to allow them to repair it themselves. I had it repaired by the TVR dealer, I don't recall if I left it to my insurer or claimed directly from his. His insurer definitely paid though.
Russ T Bolt said:
OverSteery said:
Gary C said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The farmer can insist his fence is repaired to a decent standard but he can't demand driver's insurance pays for it. The insurance is there to pick up the bills for damage caused by their policyholder/driver, but only if their policyholder/driver asks them to. The policyholder/driver is quite entitled to pay for the damage himself.
Of course he canUse the MIDB and make a claim for loss. Just needs the reg of the car
Might be harder to prove but he has the right to claim no matter what the insured desires.
His dad owned a bodyshop and tried hard to get me to allow them to repair it themselves. I had it repaired by the TVR dealer, I don't recall if I left it to my insurer or claimed directly from his. His insurer definitely paid though.
Oddly, they sent a claims assessor, a car enthusiast, the reason being I had 'ticked a couple of boxes': hit from the rear, suffered head injury (that from the sunroof catch) and not claiming for whiplash. The odd thing is, I didn't mention a head injury, but the injury bled a bit and the woman passenger kept saying, "It's a minor injury, that's all.", so I assume it was mentioned on the claim that the torrent of blood was from a mere graze.
MightyBadger said:
He can't, he had an accident and caused the damage to the farmers fence. The farmer decides how it's fixed and if it goes through insurance or not.
Nearly. The farmer chooses whether or not to claim from the 3rd party insurer and the insurer decides whether to allow the young lad to pay from his own pocket and avoid a claim. In either case the farmer is entitled to a fence equal to the one that was damaged (not better).Forester1965 said:
Nearly. The farmer chooses whether or not to claim from the 3rd party insurer and the insurer decides whether to allow the young lad to pay from his own pocket and avoid a claim. In either case the farmer is entitled to a fence equal to the one that was damaged (not better).
The farmer may be entitled to a better fence than damaged if he claims on his insurance, which might be why he’s doing it Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff