Roof Tile Incident
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
superlightr said:
Errr thats what Courts do? like its their whole purpose and function.
They tend to apply the law. 
(as im sure you know)In a money claim they will try and get to a fair and just solution based upon the arguments which again Im sure you know.
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 14:16
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 14:17
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 14:18
chazwind said:
And, of course, insurance companies aren't at all interested in limiting their own liabilities to the benefit of their own shareholders (including avoiding payouts for valid claims if they can get away with it). That's never happened. At all. Ever. Honest.
Even if that's true (and I'd like to see evidence of valid claims being refused), in this case it's not relevant, as the claim is invalid. There is no cover for liability to third parties beyond legal liability.superlightr said:
In a money claim they will try and get to a fair and just solution based upon the arguments which again Im sure you know.
I'm not sure that's true. If the claimant has no case in law, they won't win. It's got nothing to do with fairness.Suppose I play a fruit machine all night and don't win a bean. When I walk away, first person to play next wins the jackpot first go.
According to you, I could sue him, because the courts "will try and get to a fair and just solution."
Good luck with that.Life isn't fair. The courts aren't there to make it so.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
chazwind said:
And, of course, insurance companies aren't at all interested in limiting their own liabilities to the benefit of their own shareholders (including avoiding payouts for valid claims if they can get away with it). That's never happened. At all. Ever. Honest.
Even if that's true (and I'd like to see evidence of valid claims being refused), in this case it's not relevant, as the claim is invalid. There is no cover for liability to third parties beyond legal liability.
chazwind said:
Devil2575 said:
How is it down to who the court believes?
In a court the two opposing sides will give a version of events and the judge has to decide who they believe.
However what is the OP's side in this case? What grounds does he have to claim negligence?
Other than "My car was hit by a tile and in my opinion this can only have been because the roof was not properly maintained" is not an arguement worthy of consideration.
The court doesn't need to decide which side the believe, the judge needs to decide whether there is sufficient factual evidence to support the claim that the owner of the building was negligent. This is not a "My word against theirs" scenario IMHO.
superlightr said:
Their position and experience can be argued to put them on a higher level of what is reasonable or not when making sure their building is safe in the normal course of business and or after a storm etc.
Is this based on an understanding of the law?Edited by superlightr on Thursday 21st January 14:10
chazwind said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
chazwind said:
And, of course, insurance companies aren't at all interested in limiting their own liabilities to the benefit of their own shareholders (including avoiding payouts for valid claims if they can get away with it). That's never happened. At all. Ever. Honest.
Even if that's true (and I'd like to see evidence of valid claims being refused), in this case it's not relevant, as the claim is invalid. There is no cover for liability to third parties beyond legal liability.I've known a lot of people bleating that claims they thought were valid which weren't. Like yourself, until yesterday you thought tiles falling of roofs were automatically the fault of the roof owner.
Devil2575 said:
chazwind said:
Devil2575 said:
How is it down to who the court believes?
In a court the two opposing sides will give a version of events and the judge has to decide who they believe.
However what is the OP's side in this case? What grounds does he have to claim negligence?
Other than "My car was hit by a tile and in my opinion this can only have been because the roof was not properly maintained" is not an arguement worthy of consideration.
The court doesn't need to decide which side the believe, the judge needs to decide whether there is sufficient factual evidence to support the claim that the owner of the building was negligent. This is not a "My word against theirs" scenario IMHO.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
chazwind said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
chazwind said:
And, of course, insurance companies aren't at all interested in limiting their own liabilities to the benefit of their own shareholders (including avoiding payouts for valid claims if they can get away with it). That's never happened. At all. Ever. Honest.
Even if that's true (and I'd like to see evidence of valid claims being refused), in this case it's not relevant, as the claim is invalid. There is no cover for liability to third parties beyond legal liability.I've known a lot of people bleating that claims they thought were valid which weren't. Like yourself, until yesterday you thought tiles falling of roofs were automatically the fault of the roof owner.
chazwind said:
What if [shock!horror!] the COMMERCIAL building owner had to show in court that they had acted responsibly (with public access directly beneath their clearly poorly-maintained roof) by showing that they considered it a potential risk, put in place a proper inspection & maintenance regime, and ensured that sufficient insurance was in place. But no, according to you, it's all down to the unsuspecting victim down below to foot the bill. Dented bonnet? Their problem! Cracked skull? Their problem! Wheelchair for life? Their problem!
Was the roof in question clearly poorly maintained?This is central to my point. What is the basis for this asserion?
As yet the OP or you have not provided any evidence that the roof in question was poorly maintained.
What if (shock horror) you actually had to back up your assertions with evidence in order for people to take you seriously.
As for the stuff about cracked skull etc, I have no idea what the case would be if a life changing injury had resulted from a tile falling. Just because someone is injured by a falling tile doesn't make the owner of the property or the insurer liable. What if in storm a branch broke off a tree on your proprty and hit a passer by who then spent the rest of their days wheelchair bound. Would that be your fault?
Throwing in extreme hypothetical examples does not equal evidence.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
PAULJ5555 said:
If you were walking down the road and the tile damaged/chopped off your arm and you could no longer work in your type of job. Does the law really leave you out on a limb (bad pun I know)
Yes.That's what personal accident / permanent health insurance is for. If you choose not to by it and cover yourself, who do you expect to pay, when it was nobody's fault. What if you couldn't work again following a lightning strike. It's the same thing. Sometimes accidents happen and no one has done anything wrong.
PAULJ5555 said:
If a serviceable item fell off my car and damaged/hurt someone the same day I had it serviced & MOT'D does that mean that my insurance would not pay out. Nobody had done anything wrong here.
They might pay out because it would be cheaper than fighting it - but in general they would be entitled to refuse to pay out on the basis of no negligence, absent commercial considerations. Of course, they couldn't then say that it was your liability - the point is that they would only be liable to cover your liability and not merely any claim that could ever be imagined. If you were then sued, you would be entitled to refer it back to your insurers to defend, but they would defend the claim in your name.
CYMR0 said:
PAULJ5555 said:
If a serviceable item fell off my car and damaged/hurt someone the same day I had it serviced & MOT'D does that mean that my insurance would not pay out. Nobody had done anything wrong here.
They might pay out because it would be cheaper than fighting it - but in general they would be entitled to refuse to pay out on the basis of no negligence, absent commercial considerations. Of course, they couldn't then say that it was your liability - the point is that they would only be liable to cover your liability and not merely any claim that could ever be imagined. If you were then sued, you would be entitled to refer it back to your insurers to defend, but they would defend the claim in your name.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff