Farmer claiming for damaged fence
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The insurer has rights of subrogation. That's something we as policyholders sign over to them when we take out the policy. So our insurers have the right to act on our behalf. Sometimes in a way we might not agree with. But that's a bit different to what some people are saying here. They are saying the farmer has the right to insist that the lad's insurers deal with it rather than the lad himself. He absolutely does not. If the lad's insurer are happy for him to settle privately (and most will be, he is the policyholder and keeping the policyholder happy whilst not paying out any money suits them) , and if the lad is prepared to settle the claim properly and pay promptly and in full, there's not a damn thing the farmer can do about it.
This is all covered under basic tort, contracts, negligence and compensation. You are the victim of negligence and suffer damage, you have the right to get compensated for that damage, end of story. You don't have the right to say who compensates you.
Interesting. What happens if the lad turns out to be a complete waste of space and takes the pi** out of the farmer with token efforts to replace fence that drag on for quite some time? Who does the farmer turn to then?This is all covered under basic tort, contracts, negligence and compensation. You are the victim of negligence and suffer damage, you have the right to get compensated for that damage, end of story. You don't have the right to say who compensates you.
Personally, knowing what the general public can be like, I can understand the farmer wanting to deal with an insurance company.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Gary C said:
The same AI that wrote a dissertation and made up all the referenced facts.
Not sure how much experience you have using GPT4? It's not infallible and it does make mistakes. But it can also be an incredible useful tool. Rather like using Google I find.In any event, I gave it the facts and it gave its opinion. Its view also aligns with my own understanding. Once Twig adds his sources, maybe they will be more authoritative.
Edited by ATG on Friday 12th April 02:29
ATG said:
ChatGPT will have acquired its "knowledge" of insurance contracts and how to describe them by scanning internet content like this very thread. It's just a statistical model of which words usually follow which other words. It therefore learns common misconceptions and repeats them.
Actually, I think I have proven ChatGPT4's view was correct. Whilst from a pure contractual perspective Twig's view was probably right, the regulator places additional obligations on insurers, over and above tort law, which directly affects how third party claims are handled and settled. This means that, where a third party has a valid claim, and particularly where the policyholder has admitted fault, the third party gets to choose whether they accept the policyholder's offer to settle any claim privately, or if they want the process the claim via the insurer. The policyholder's preference for how the claim is handled is irrelevant. There are literally dozens on ombudsman decisions in their website which establishes these facts.EddieSteadyGo said:
Actually, I think I have proven ChatGPT4's view was correct. .
Thats not the point. Never trust large language model 'AI' (its not actually AI by definition, just looks like it), always verify as it can and does make stuff up (or more accurately, mash incorrect information into a believable narrative)It also means though, that it can be right.
ATG said:
ChatGPT will have acquired its "knowledge" of insurance contracts and how to describe them by scanning internet content like this very thread. It's just a statistical model of which words usually follow which other words. It therefore learns common misconceptions and repeats them.
In which case, it surely won’t be long until it uses ‘loose’ instead of ‘lose’ and has us hitting the breaks in an accident…Edited by ATG on Friday 12th April 02:29
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?Imagine you have some nice driveway pots someone crashes into, and then offers to make you some in return, and you get this.
Killboy said:
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?Imagine you have some nice driveway pots someone crashes into, and then offers to make you some in return, and you get this.
Are the posts going to be properly hammered in, will he use the correct types of posts ,has he got a wire stretcher to get enough tension on the wire?
Either the farmer does it himself of he pays someone to do it.
EddieSteadyGo said:
ATG said:
ChatGPT will have acquired its "knowledge" of insurance contracts and how to describe them by scanning internet content like this very thread. It's just a statistical model of which words usually follow which other words. It therefore learns common misconceptions and repeats them.
Actually, I think I have proven ChatGPT4's view was correct. Whilst from a pure contractual perspective Twig's view was probably right, the regulator places additional obligations on insurers, over and above tort law, which directly affects how third party claims are handled and settled. This means that, where a third party has a valid claim, and particularly where the policyholder has admitted fault, the third party gets to choose whether they accept the policyholder's offer to settle any claim privately, or if they want the process the claim via the insurer. The policyholder's preference for how the claim is handled is irrelevant. There are literally dozens on ombudsman decisions in their website which establishes these facts.Ombudsman only deals with instances that have gone badly wrong. You're looking at a biased sample. Twig's explanation has just been a clear statement of basic legal principles plus some commercial nous about when the insurer might choose to exercise part of the contract against the wishes of their customer.
Oceanrower said:
ATG said:
ChatGPT will have acquired its "knowledge" of insurance contracts and how to describe them by scanning internet content like this very thread. It's just a statistical model of which words usually follow which other words. It therefore learns common misconceptions and repeats them.
In which case, it surely won’t be long until it uses ‘loose’ instead of ‘lose’ and has us hitting the breaks in an accident…Edited by ATG on Friday 12th April 02:29
I asked it to describe my mountaineering club. It wrote a beautiful essay describing our social outreach, youth development, mentoring, training, blah, blah, blah ... none of which exist in any form at all. It was just regurgitating the pap that sits on most mountaineering club websites. What else was it supposed to do?
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.
ATG said:
Actually nothing. I've explained to you why relying on a LLM that has been trained by scraping the web is a generally bad idea if you're looking for anything more than man-in-the-pub opinion.
Ombudsman only deals with instances that have gone badly wrong. You're looking at a biased sample. Twig's explanation has just been a clear statement of basic legal principles plus some commercial nous about when the insurer might choose to exercise part of the contract against the wishes of their customer.
Why are people discussing the Ombudsman? There is no opportunity for the farmer to go to the Ombudsman over his claim with the lad and the lad’s insurer. There is no contract so nothing for the Ombudsman to rule on. Ombudsman only deals with instances that have gone badly wrong. You're looking at a biased sample. Twig's explanation has just been a clear statement of basic legal principles plus some commercial nous about when the insurer might choose to exercise part of the contract against the wishes of their customer.
The lad could go to the Ombudsman to complain about his insurer stepping in and dealing with the claim against his wishes if the farmer goes direct but that’s it.
LF5335 said:
ATG said:
Actually nothing. I've explained to you why relying on a LLM that has been trained by scraping the web is a generally bad idea if you're looking for anything more than man-in-the-pub opinion.
Ombudsman only deals with instances that have gone badly wrong. You're looking at a biased sample. Twig's explanation has just been a clear statement of basic legal principles plus some commercial nous about when the insurer might choose to exercise part of the contract against the wishes of their customer.
Why are people discussing the Ombudsman? There is no opportunity for the farmer to go to the Ombudsman over his claim with the lad and the lad’s insurer. There is no contract so nothing for the Ombudsman to rule on. Ombudsman only deals with instances that have gone badly wrong. You're looking at a biased sample. Twig's explanation has just been a clear statement of basic legal principles plus some commercial nous about when the insurer might choose to exercise part of the contract against the wishes of their customer.
The lad could go to the Ombudsman to complain about his insurer stepping in and dealing with the claim against his wishes if the farmer goes direct but that’s it.
This thread is a bit odd. Everyone is arguing that this chap's insurance should not be involved as he is offering to pay instead of his insurance, but he isn't, he is insisting on DIYing the fix and the farmer should accept that.
I think you'd find his insurance company would be more than happy to let him pay, but if he's not going to they will because they have provided exactly this cover - and I'm sure a small claims court would instruct them to if the farmer pursues him directly.
I think you'd find his insurance company would be more than happy to let him pay, but if he's not going to they will because they have provided exactly this cover - and I'm sure a small claims court would instruct them to if the farmer pursues him directly.
Pit Pony said:
The insurance company will have to replace like with like.
Where will they get 3 rotten posts and some very Rusty barbed wire from to replace what was there.
They’d prob get that from the lad that crashed’s place!Where will they get 3 rotten posts and some very Rusty barbed wire from to replace what was there.
Picking up on “how is the farmer insured” again.
The driver & his insurance would I guess be liable for a like for like replacement to put the farmer back to where he was, however if the farmer pays a premium for his own insurance to be “new for old” to prevent poor repairs he possibly needs to claim on insurance.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Not sure how much experience you have using GPT4? It's not infallible and it does make mistakes. But it can also be an incredible useful tool. Rather like using Google I find.
In any event, I gave it the facts and it gave its opinion. Its view also aligns with my own understanding. Once Twig adds his sources, maybe they will be more authoritative.
You do realise Twig has spent most of his working life in Insurance, or perhaps you don't.In any event, I gave it the facts and it gave its opinion. Its view also aligns with my own understanding. Once Twig adds his sources, maybe they will be more authoritative.
MustangGT said:
You do realise Twig has spent most of his working life in Insurance, or perhaps you don't.
Twig is light on facts and heavy on "possible suggestions". I would not pay much attention to his "experience" personally.The fact that he's missed the entire crux of the OP should not be any surprise. But he'll continue to try and twist whatever silly anecdote he makes to fit his "possible suggestions".
LF5335 said:
Why are people discussing the Ombudsman? There is no opportunity for the farmer to go to the Ombudsman over his claim with the lad and the lad’s insurer. There is no contract so nothing for the Ombudsman to rule on.
The lad could go to the Ombudsman to complain about his insurer stepping in and dealing with the claim against his wishes if the farmer goes direct but that’s it.
Because the ombudsman has ruled on a similar case and it has bearing on how the driver’s insurers are likely to deal with the farmer approaching them to lodge a claim.The lad could go to the Ombudsman to complain about his insurer stepping in and dealing with the claim against his wishes if the farmer goes direct but that’s it.
MustangGT said:
You do realise Twig has spent most of his working life in Insurance, or perhaps you don't.
If someone has extensive experience they should find it easy to reference the source of their assertions/facts. I've already said, from a tort law perspective, I'm sure Twig's view was correct. However, that isn't the only consideration. Parliament established the Financial Ombudsman which has set out additional requirements and obligations on insurers, including claims made by third parties. I've supplied a specific and relevant ruling from the Ombudsman which shows how they expect insurers to deal with third party claims. In practical terms this means, if a third party has a valid claim, and if the policyholder had admitted fault, the third party can request the insurer process the claim, regardless of whether the policyholder would prefer to settle the claim privately. And because the insurer needs to comply with the rulings of the Ombudsman, that is what is going to happen.
The answer is in the contract and legislation.
The farmer has no right to determine who will settle his claim (there is no legislation to enforce it and he has no contract with the insurer or insured). The insurer can choose at its discretion whether or not to take over a claim. For example (and I'd expect all insurers to have analogous clauses)...
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.
The farmer has no right to determine who will settle his claim (there is no legislation to enforce it and he has no contract with the insurer or insured). The insurer can choose at its discretion whether or not to take over a claim. For example (and I'd expect all insurers to have analogous clauses)...
Legal and General Motor Policy said:
15 General Policy Conditions
...
The insurer is entitled under this policy to;
Take over and conduct the defence and settlement of any claim in your
name or in the name of any other person insured by your policy
...
https://www.legalandgeneral.com/_resources/pdfs/in......
The insurer is entitled under this policy to;
Take over and conduct the defence and settlement of any claim in your
name or in the name of any other person insured by your policy
...
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff