Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1
3
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

Fozziebear

1,037 posts

26 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
There is no operation to reverse the effects of smoking, just drugs, nebulisers, oxygen and a slow death. Every time I see my father he's fading away, so £36,000 is nothing to me, even a billion wouldn't turn back the damage that stick of death has done to him. I know it was his choice to smoke, which he has told me on several occasisions, but the tax just doesn't justify the death/loss

daz3210

5,000 posts

126 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
Futuramic said:
I will have paid £31,200 which added to the first figure provides a grand total of £36,660!

And that's just me. Therefore I reckon that should cover the cost of an operation.
I would hazard a guess the total cost of care will not be covered!

btdk5

1,460 posts

76 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
Fozziebear said:
There is no operation to reverse the effects of smoking, just drugs, nebulisers, oxygen and a slow death. Every time I see my father he's fading away, so £36,000 is nothing to me, even a billion wouldn't turn back the damage that stick of death has done to him. I know it was his choice to smoke, which he has told me on several occasisions, but the tax just doesn't justify the death/loss
It does to the state.

hora

Original Poster:

18,690 posts

97 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
moreflaps said:
Futuramic said:
Let's use a random figure of £5 tax for 20 cigarettes. If I smoke three packs a week then I contribute £15. Over a year that becomes £780. I have been smoking for 7 years now so have already given, approximately, £5,460. If I carry on at the same rate for another forty years I will have paid £31,200 which added to the first figure provides a grand total of £36,660!

And that's just me. Therefore I reckon that should cover the cost of an operation.
Tobacco revenue in the Uk is massive -its 12 BILLION pounds per year. The _whole_ NHS costs 100 billion so I'd say smokers are certainly paying more than their fair share...
Smokers always always find positives to reinforce denial. I was the same. Phillip Morris OWNED and I danced to his product.

hora

Original Poster:

18,690 posts

97 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
moreflaps said:
Futuramic said:
Let's use a random figure of £5 tax for 20 cigarettes. If I smoke three packs a week then I contribute £15. Over a year that becomes £780. I have been smoking for 7 years now so have already given, approximately, £5,460. If I carry on at the same rate for another forty years I will have paid £31,200 which added to the first figure provides a grand total of £36,660!

And that's just me. Therefore I reckon that should cover the cost of an operation.
Tobacco revenue in the Uk is massive -its 12 BILLION pounds per year. The _whole_ NHS costs 100 billion so I'd say smokers are certainly paying more than their fair share...
Smokers always always find positives to reinforce denial. I was the same. Phillip Morris OWNED and I danced to his product.

Advertisement

TwigtheWonderkid

12,174 posts

36 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
h0b0 said:
Also, once the insurance company is done paying they go after the drunk to cover their costs.

It's the drunk's insurance co that will pay, not the drunk himself.

daz3210

5,000 posts

126 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
h0b0 said:
Also, once the insurance company is done paying they go after the drunk to cover their costs.

It's the drunk's insurance co that will pay, not the drunk himself.
In the first instance yes.

But his own insurer may look to him then to repay their costs.

I would have thought that the injured party would be entitled to the costs of his care, and that maybe it would be cheaper in the long run to the insurer. The sooner the medical problem is dealt with, the less the claim in respect of pain and suffering surely. That's irrespective of whether the bloke is a top athlete or not.



TwigtheWonderkid

12,174 posts

36 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
h0b0 said:
Also, once the insurance company is done paying they go after the drunk to cover their costs.

It's the drunk's insurance co that will pay, not the drunk himself.
In the first instance yes.

But his own insurer may look to him then to repay their costs.
You think so? Under what legislation or insurance terms? You think that just because the driver was breaking the law at the time of the claim his insurers can recover their outlay. Isd that for drink driving or does it extend to speeding, driving without due care etc.

I'd be very interested in a link to the appropriate ruling that enables an insurer to claim back from the policyholder their outlay in a case like this. Because to be honest, I think you're talking complete and utter claptrap.

daz3210

5,000 posts

126 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You think so? Under what legislation or insurance terms? You think that just because the driver was breaking the law at the time of the claim his insurers can recover their outlay. Isd that for drink driving or does it extend to speeding, driving without due care etc.

I'd be very interested in a link to the appropriate ruling that enables an insurer to claim back from the policyholder their outlay in a case like this. Because to be honest, I think you're talking complete and utter claptrap.
Based on the argument that drunk driving would invalidate the insurance policy, the policy would not cover the drunks car.

But, his insurer cannot avoid the third party liability required under law.

Based on the fact the insurance is invalid, but the insurer has to pay, they could argue that the drunk driver should repay their costs.

Its little different to if you did not disclose some material fact when you purchase insurance, which has been done to death before on this forum.


TwigtheWonderkid

12,174 posts

36 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
Based on the argument that drunk driving would invalidate the insurance policy, the policy would not cover the drunks car.

But, his insurer cannot avoid the third party liability required under law.

Based on the fact the insurance is invalid, but the insurer has to pay, they could argue that the drunk driver should repay their costs.

Its little different to if you did not disclose some material fact when you purchase insurance, which has been done to death before on this forum.
That's a brilliant and extremely well constructed argument. There is however, one minor flaw in it. And that is, drunk driving does not invalidate your insurance. rolleyes

daz3210

5,000 posts

126 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
daz3210 said:
Based on the argument that drunk driving would invalidate the insurance policy, the policy would not cover the drunks car.

But, his insurer cannot avoid the third party liability required under law.

Based on the fact the insurance is invalid, but the insurer has to pay, they could argue that the drunk driver should repay their costs.

Its little different to if you did not disclose some material fact when you purchase insurance, which has been done to death before on this forum.
That's a brilliant and extremely well constructed argument. There is however, one minor flaw in it. And that is, drunk driving does not invalidate your insurance. rolleyes
Except I believe some policies makes some mention of driving under the influence of drink or drugs invalidates cover. I'll dig my policy out when I get a minute, but essentially it does probably depend on whats in the policy details/ contract for insurance.

LoonR1

19,386 posts

63 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
Based on the argument that drunk driving would invalidate the insurance policy, the policy would not cover the drunks car.

But, his insurer cannot avoid the third party liability required under law.

Based on the fact the insurance is invalid, but the insurer has to pay, they could argue that the drunk driver should repay their costs.

Its little different to if you did not disclose some material fact when you purchase insurance, which has been done to death before on this forum.
Incorrect on every count.



daz3210

5,000 posts

126 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
LoonR1 said:
daz3210 said:
Based on the argument that drunk driving would invalidate the insurance policy, the policy would not cover the drunks car.

But, his insurer cannot avoid the third party liability required under law.

Based on the fact the insurance is invalid, but the insurer has to pay, they could argue that the drunk driver should repay their costs.

Its little different to if you did not disclose some material fact when you purchase insurance, which has been done to death before on this forum.
Incorrect on every count.
Please explain.

If an policy had a clause that said DD invalidates, surely they couldn't avoid the third party cover, but could recover from the DD later.

TwigtheWonderkid

12,174 posts

36 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
Please explain.

If an policy had a clause that said DD invalidates, surely they couldn't avoid the third party cover, but could recover from the DD later.
You're living in dreamland. Such a clause doesn't exist. Some insurers have a drink/drugs clause, for policyholders with a previous conviction for drink/drive, but all that clause does is to restrict cover to third party only if the policyholder is breath tested positive at the scene of a future accident.

Insurers cannot recover their third party outlay form the policyholder where the polcyholder has told the truth when taking out a policy. No matter how stupid the policyholder may have been. Drunk, doing 150mph in a 30 limit, acting as a gettaway driver in a bank raid, it matters not.



daz3210

5,000 posts

126 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
daz3210 said:
Please explain.

If an policy had a clause that said DD invalidates, surely they couldn't avoid the third party cover, but could recover from the DD later.
You're living in dreamland. Such a clause doesn't exist. Some insurers have a drink/drugs clause, for policyholders with a previous conviction for drink/drive, but all that clause does is to restrict cover to third party only if the policyholder is breath tested positive at the scene of a future accident.

Insurers cannot recover their third party outlay form the policyholder where the polcyholder has told the truth when taking out a policy. No matter how stupid the policyholder may have been. Drunk, doing 150mph in a 30 limit, acting as a gettaway driver in a bank raid, it matters not.
Read what you quoted me as saying again.

A contract can include whatever the two contracting parties agree to.


TwigtheWonderkid

12,174 posts

36 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
daz3210 said:
Please explain.

If an policy had a clause that said DD invalidates, surely they couldn't avoid the third party cover, but could recover from the DD later.
You're living in dreamland. Such a clause doesn't exist. Some insurers have a drink/drugs clause, for policyholders with a previous conviction for drink/drive, but all that clause does is to restrict cover to third party only if the policyholder is breath tested positive at the scene of a future accident.

Insurers cannot recover their third party outlay form the policyholder where the polcyholder has told the truth when taking out a policy. No matter how stupid the policyholder may have been. Drunk, doing 150mph in a 30 limit, acting as a gettaway driver in a bank raid, it matters not.
Read what you quoted me as saying again.

A contract can include whatever the two contracting parties agree to.
Not if it breaks the law. Insurance companys don't get to pick and choose what they can and can't say. They are goverened by the ABI and Lloyd's. They are also subject to UK and European law.

EG. The law says that any UK motor policy must give the minimum cover in any other EU country. If the insurer doesn't like that have 2 choices. Either lump it, or get out of motor insurance. They can't refuse to give the cover in their contract, that's illegal.

There are very strict criteria governing whn an insurance company can seek recouse against a policyholder for tp damages paid out on the policyholders behalf. And drink driving ain't one of them.

Just face it, you've got it wrong.

daz3210

5,000 posts

126 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not if it breaks the law. Insurance companys don't get to pick and choose what they can and can't say. They are goverened by the ABI and Lloyd's. They are also subject to UK and European law.

EG. The law says that any UK motor policy must give the minimum cover in any other EU country. If the insurer doesn't like that have 2 choices. Either lump it, or get out of motor insurance. They can't refuse to give the cover in their contract, that's illegal.

There are very strict criteria governing whn an insurance company can seek recouse against a policyholder for tp damages paid out on the policyholders behalf. And drink driving ain't one of them.

Just face it, you've got it wrong.
Again (for the second time) I would ask you to revisit what I have previously typed.

There are two issues here:-

1. Legal minimum insurance
2. Contractual liabilities

Legally an insurance company would have to meet legal minimum.

Contractually, an insurer and insured can agree terms as they like. If that includes a clause that says the policy is void in the case of drunk driving, that is valid, but subject to the legal minimum. If an insurer decides to try to recover losses in those circumstances I cannot see why they shouldn't be able to (except the insured may not have assets to cover it).

Even the concept of legally needing insurance is not total in law. Our local council do not carry insurance cover on their vehicles at all. Instead they have a rather large bond (think multiple millions)lodged with some financial institution instead. In essence they insure themselves, but that is maybe a subject for another thread.


TwigtheWonderkid

12,174 posts

36 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not if it breaks the law. Insurance companys don't get to pick and choose what they can and can't say. They are goverened by the ABI and Lloyd's. They are also subject to UK and European law.

EG. The law says that any UK motor policy must give the minimum cover in any other EU country. If the insurer doesn't like that have 2 choices. Either lump it, or get out of motor insurance. They can't refuse to give the cover in their contract, that's illegal.

There are very strict criteria governing whn an insurance company can seek recouse against a policyholder for tp damages paid out on the policyholders behalf. And drink driving ain't one of them.

Just face it, you've got it wrong.
Again (for the second time) I would ask you to revisit what I have previously typed.

There are two issues here:-

1. Legal minimum insurance
2. Contractual liabilities

Legally an insurance company would have to meet legal minimum.

Contractually, an insurer and insured can agree terms as they like. If that includes a clause that says the policy is void in the case of drunk driving, that is valid, but subject to the legal minimum. If an insurer decides to try to recover losses in those circumstances I cannot see why they shouldn't be able to (except the insured may not have assets to cover it).

Even the concept of legally needing insurance is not total in law. Our local council do not carry insurance cover on their vehicles at all. Instead they have a rather large bond (think multiple millions)lodged with some financial institution instead. In essence they insure themselves, but that is maybe a subject for another thread.
banghead As well as legal minimums, insurers also have to work in accordance with the ABI, in order to trade lawfully in the UK. The ABI say in order to transact insutrance in the UK, you must do this, must do that, must do the other. The ABI tell insurers in what circumstances they can decline claims, or in the case of motor, pay the tp and then claim it back from the policyholder.

And so I'll say it again for the hard of listening. An insurance company cannot put a clause in it's policy to claim back from policyholder tp costs for being drunk. Bacause it's in breach of the ABI and they would be trading illegally. Do you not get it? It isn't rocket surgery!

Re the bond with the DTI, currently £500K, that is a complete red herring because in those cases the insurer isn't paying the tp anyway, the client is.

daz3210

5,000 posts

126 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Re the bond with the DTI, currently £500K, that is a complete red herring because in those cases the insurer isn't paying the tp anyway, the client is.
Hence there is no insurance, the client pays directly from his own pocket.

Local Council bond was reported to be £5million several years ago, I doubt it is less these days, but may well be more.



TwigtheWonderkid

12,174 posts

36 months

[news] 
Monday 8th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Re the bond with the DTI, currently £500K, that is a complete red herring because in those cases the insurer isn't paying the tp anyway, the client is.
Hence there is no insurance, the client pays directly from his own pocket.

Local Council bond was reported to be £5million several years ago, I doubt it is less these days, but may well be more.
There is insurance in a way, the DTi have £500K to meet any claims the client cannot pay. But what has this got to do with what we're talking about; your insistance that an insurer could, if they chose to, put a clause in their policy making drunk drivers ultimately responsible for tp costs, and my assersion that they cannot.

If you're right and I'm wrong, I assume they could do the same for speeding. So if you're proved to have been doing 35 in a 30 when you hit the child, they can come after you for third party outlay. Nonsense....complete nonsense.
1
3
Reply to Topic