Tax The Rich Flaming Miura In Court
Discussion
It'll still be the insurers, even if they're claiming for uninsured loss: in legal terms this isn't much different from a standard rear-ender, just that the level of property damage is much higher. That also means that the claim will be brought in the name of the insured rather than of the insurer, because the primary loss is the insured's.
Similarly, the insurers won't have resisted the payout on the basis that driver error is a possibility (as suggested above): a comprehensive insurance policy that didn't cover you for your own negligence wouldn't be much use. "So you reversed your car into a lamppost? That was a bit silly, Sir, wasn't it, so no, we won't be covering you..."
Of course if they could show gross negligence then fair enough, but if they thought that was on the cards then their third party claim would be doomed from the start.
Similarly, the insurers won't have resisted the payout on the basis that driver error is a possibility (as suggested above): a comprehensive insurance policy that didn't cover you for your own negligence wouldn't be much use. "So you reversed your car into a lamppost? That was a bit silly, Sir, wasn't it, so no, we won't be covering you..."
Of course if they could show gross negligence then fair enough, but if they thought that was on the cards then their third party claim would be doomed from the start.
I have owned three Miura over the years two being SV and I still have an early P400,one of the SV caught fire one day, I did what I was told foot on the clutch and press the throttle hard this sucks the flames back in, but if you don't know what to do they can easily catch fire, this is normally caused by the air filters above the carbs retaining fuel and when carbs spit back flames they catch fire, there has also been cases where a spark of the HT leads have set light to fuel pipes etc,fuel pressure should be requlated,Miura like any old car have faults but if you know them they are wonderful cars, it is unfortunate Mr Hunts car burnt out but when you see flames the normal reaction is to get out quick, you have to be brave to try to suck the flames back
Macadoodle said:
I'm surprised the insurers didn't try to get out of paying the claim if, as suggested above, there is a possibility of 'driver error' causing the fire.
Why would they? 99% of insurance claims for cars are a result of driver error. Cars don't crash for no reason, after all.If driver error wasn't covered what would be the point in having insurance in the first place?!
The dates are a little strange.....
"On December 19th 2012 Mr Hunt delivered the vehicle to the defendant's garage on School Road, North Acton."
"On 5th April 2013 Mr Hunt, by his son, attended the garage to collect the vehicle."
Did it take 3 1/2 months to service the car......or is it when you worth £1bn you forget that you have a £1m car sat at a garage waiting for collection?
"On December 19th 2012 Mr Hunt delivered the vehicle to the defendant's garage on School Road, North Acton."
"On 5th April 2013 Mr Hunt, by his son, attended the garage to collect the vehicle."
Did it take 3 1/2 months to service the car......or is it when you worth £1bn you forget that you have a £1m car sat at a garage waiting for collection?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff