M20 footbridge.
Discussion
As I understand it, consequential loss is just not covered, it's a fundamental of insurance.
Otherwise every time someone crashed on the M25, 1000 people would claim from that drivers insurance for the missed £10M contract that they were on their way to sign.
I think the essence is, if you need that kind of insurance, you need to buy it yourself.
Otherwise every time someone crashed on the M25, 1000 people would claim from that drivers insurance for the missed £10M contract that they were on their way to sign.
I think the essence is, if you need that kind of insurance, you need to buy it yourself.
5lab said:
out of interest, if I was stuck on the m20 traffic and missed a ferry, why couldn't I claim off the truckers insurance (assuming he is insured, the company isn't self-insured)? Lets assume he's negligent in driving into a bridge, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that their insurance will pay up for the cargo in the following lorry that got squished, plus the motorbiker who pranged himself as a result. I also believe (again, let me know if this isn't the case) that if said biker had previously booked a holiday, and now can't go, the lorry insurance would have again paid up. So where does the liability cease? I'm not suggesting that the truckers insurance would pick it all up (I've never heard of that happening), I just don't know why they don't - something in the back of my mind says something about the forseeability of the cost as a result of the action - but I might be on the wrong track?
If you are negligent when driving a vehicle (and hit a bridge), you are responsible for reasonably foreseeable consequences. That would be damage to the bridge, and damage or injury done to other vehicles or people. Losses such as the financial consequences of those stuck in the aftermath are deemed to be not reasonably foreseeable. Otherwise, as said, people could be claiming, quite genuinely, for lost contracts, too late to buy their lotto ticket and their numbers came up, etc. desolate said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No. It's a motor claim.
They will be a few people having kittens tonight waiting to see who is on the slate for this.Gooda Walker
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/law-report...
These days, its paid. No dramas.
TVR1 said:
There really wont be, other than deciding who re-re-reinsured the insurer.25 years ago, perhaps, when a few wealthy but not rich beyond averice were convinced that forming syndicates was a good idea when advised badly.
Gooda Walker
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/law-report...
These days, its paid. No dramas.
People who work in the industry care as well, even if all they are doing is working for the company that covers the first part of the loss before passing it on to a reinsurer. I'll certainly be checking it's not on one of our schemes.Gooda Walker
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/law-report...
These days, its paid. No dramas.
This will surely max out the single claim limit of the property damage section?
The truck carrying the digger had just passed under a gantry okay. The truck was on the hard shoulder. Why was the footbridge lower than the gantry at that point? It seems to me that the bridge construction/design is at fault. Also, is there a possibility that the footbridge collapsed rather than being hit by the digger?
TooMany2cvs said:
They won't be.
Apart from having to lodge a half-million quid bond to be self-insured, wasn't there an FoI request (? or something similar...) a year or two back that said the number of fleets self-insured was in single figures, nationally?
I believe our company used to self insure for motor vehicles, its now third party liability only and individual cost centres have to stump up repair or replace a persons car when we are at anyway in fault.Apart from having to lodge a half-million quid bond to be self-insured, wasn't there an FoI request (? or something similar...) a year or two back that said the number of fleets self-insured was in single figures, nationally?
Chris944 said:
The truck carrying the digger had just passed under a gantry okay. The truck was on the hard shoulder. Why was the footbridge lower than the gantry at that point? It seems to me that the bridge construction/design is at fault. Also, is there a possibility that the footbridge collapsed rather than being hit by the digger?
Good point.Not very easy to tell from this pic..
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3088252,0.380004...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm not sure it'll be that big a claim. Rebuild a footbridge, a written off artic, minor injuries to a motorcyclist and repair to his bike, highway agency staff costs etc. No major injuries or deaths. A couple of million tops. It's no Selby train crash!
I had forgotten about Selby.Must admit I am surprised that the cost to rebuild the bridge.
Maybe not so bad then.
TooMany2cvs said:
A huge excess - because there IS an insurer who'll then pick the rest up.
I started thinking that after posting. The company has since been bought by a huge multi national and the insurance is still the same so I guess the number of real 'self insured' companies really is very small. Thanks for replying
Shirley everyone has to have Third Party insurance as a requirement of the Road Traffic Acts.
So what bills are people like, for example, London Transport, likely to be picking up? What does 3rd Party cover?
I mention LT because I had heard that they self-insured their fleet, which makes sense as the comprehensive element of their annual premium would surely just be last year's claims plus a handling fee?
So what bills are people like, for example, London Transport, likely to be picking up? What does 3rd Party cover?
I mention LT because I had heard that they self-insured their fleet, which makes sense as the comprehensive element of their annual premium would surely just be last year's claims plus a handling fee?
QBee said:
Shirley everyone has to have Third Party insurance as a requirement of the Road Traffic Acts.
Yes, unless...There is a clause which allows somebody to lodge a sufficiently large bond - IIRC it's currently half a million quid - and then you are utterly self-insured, and meet RTA requirements.
I'm sure large organisations like the Royal Mail (the largest UK fleet) do it completely in house. They almost certainly have reinsurance in case of another Selby type claim to cover the possibility of a huge TP claim. Other smaller fleets like bus companies almost certainly will have set up a Captive insurance company purely to deal their own and TP vehicles and to meet their legal obligations to cover RTA. These are often administered by some of the larger insurance companies and their staff.on a fee paying basis.
As long as claims costs, admin fees and reinsurance costs are below what it would cost to insure the fleet normally then they are quids in. They will have years where they save a lot others not so much and it all generally averages out. They will also have either incentive or punitive schemes to encourage safer driving, driver training, driver handbooks with rules possibly cameras they can use as evidence in dispute situations. If done right it can save them a lot of money.
As long as claims costs, admin fees and reinsurance costs are below what it would cost to insure the fleet normally then they are quids in. They will have years where they save a lot others not so much and it all generally averages out. They will also have either incentive or punitive schemes to encourage safer driving, driver training, driver handbooks with rules possibly cameras they can use as evidence in dispute situations. If done right it can save them a lot of money.
elanfan said:
I'm sure large organisations like the Royal Mail (the largest UK fleet) do it completely in house. They almost certainly have reinsurance in case of another Selby type claim to cover the possibility of a huge TP claim. Other smaller fleets like bus companies almost certainly will have set up a Captive insurance company purely to deal their own and TP vehicles and to meet their legal obligations to cover RTA. These are often administered by some of the larger insurance companies and their staff.on a fee paying basis.
As long as claims costs, admin fees and reinsurance costs are below what it would cost to insure the fleet normally then they are quids in. They will have years where they save a lot others not so much and it all generally averages out. They will also have either incentive or punitive schemes to encourage safer driving, driver training, driver handbooks with rules possibly cameras they can use as evidence in dispute situations. If done right it can save them a lot of money.
That's broadly correct but in most circumstances a captive is not appropriate anymore due to increased capital requirements. So what many big fleets do is set up what is in partnership with an insurer and/or a reinsurer with large aggregate excesses and fee for using their licence and capital.As long as claims costs, admin fees and reinsurance costs are below what it would cost to insure the fleet normally then they are quids in. They will have years where they save a lot others not so much and it all generally averages out. They will also have either incentive or punitive schemes to encourage safer driving, driver training, driver handbooks with rules possibly cameras they can use as evidence in dispute situations. If done right it can save them a lot of money.
WaferThinHam said:
tapereel said:
They can claim off their holiday insurance
Suspect they'd class it is an act of god or some such thing to weasel out of it. If you pay for a reasonable holiday insurance policy and not a £9.99 one off the net then missed departure will be covered.
Chris944 said:
The truck carrying the digger had just passed under a gantry okay. The truck was on the hard shoulder. Why was the footbridge lower than the gantry at that point? It seems to me that the bridge construction/design is at fault. Also, is there a possibility that the footbridge collapsed rather than being hit by the digger?
The bridge section that is over the shoulder still has to be over 5.1m unless it is marked, The bridge is the same height all the way across, the pic and level of the actual footway makes it looks like it is lower. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff