I see dead people!
Discussion
Mt workmates wife was in Sainsburys the other week, when their new ford was rear-ended by a driver who had suffered a fatal heat attack. he scraped a couple of other cars, before shunting her, and damaging the bumper. now his insurance are saying, we will pay nothing out untill the exact time of death is established!!! please discuss.
Mt workmates wife was in Sainsburys the other week, when their new ford was rear-ended by a driver who had suffered a fatal heat attack. he scraped a couple of other cars, before shunting her, and damaging the bumper. now his insurance are saying, we will pay nothing out untill the exact time of death is established!!! please discuss.
Why not? I thought it was rear-end = at fault.
That sounds very much like a cop out to me.
. Reminds me of a story from my biking days, where a doctor in India had to attend a fatality. Owing to the remoteness of the location, he elected to remove the deceased from the scene on the back of his scooter (somehow). Apparently he was stopped by the boys in blue (errrr.. or whatever colour they wear!) who nicked him for... an insecure load. 
Still, over here the corpse would've got a ticket for not wearing a crash helmet...
Ian
Still, over here the corpse would've got a ticket for not wearing a crash helmet...
Ian
phantum said: Make the NHS pay!
You must be joking. The Govt are already looking at making insurance companies pay the complete medical bill of those involved in an RTA. And we already pay a nominal fee (I thought about 10 quid). We don't pay national insurance so we can get medical treatment you know, there are far too many asylum seekers/prisoners etc.. who don't pay a penny into the system that need looking after.
You may not like the position but I'll tell you how it is.
If the third party had a history of heart problems then his insurers should pay up. You can ask them to disclose copies of his medical records to show there was no history of heart problems.
If there was no history but you can show he was "in trouble" and I mean had earlier collisions that day/journey with parked cars then he should have pulled over and the insurers should also pay.
If there is no history at all thaht he should have been aware of his heart problems, then the insurers have a way out as it will be considered a no-fault accident from the TP's view.
If the third party had a history of heart problems then his insurers should pay up. You can ask them to disclose copies of his medical records to show there was no history of heart problems.
If there was no history but you can show he was "in trouble" and I mean had earlier collisions that day/journey with parked cars then he should have pulled over and the insurers should also pay.
If there is no history at all thaht he should have been aware of his heart problems, then the insurers have a way out as it will be considered a no-fault accident from the TP's view.
Shnozz said: You may not like the position but I'll tell you how it is.
If the third party had a history of heart problems then his insurers should pay up. You can ask them to disclose copies of his medical records to show there was no history of heart problems.
If there was no history but you can show he was "in trouble" and I mean had earlier collisions that day/journey with parked cars then he should have pulled over and the insurers should also pay.
If there is no history at all thaht he should have been aware of his heart problems, then the insurers have a way out as it will be considered a no-fault accident from the TP's view.
That may be the case to the insurance company but there is actually no such thing as an accident with 'no fault'. Clearly somebody is at fault or there would be no accident. Since this was a case of a one person accident then it follows that that one person is at fault, be they dead or otherwise at the time.
This appears to be just another example of an insurance company trying to weasel out of their responsibilities. It is high time it was the car that was insured, not the driver/car combination.
Get back to his insurance company and tell them to stop arsing about. There is not a coroner or pathologist in the world who can stand up and say that person A died at 9:27 and 30 seconds, rather than 9:27 and 50 seconds, or 9:27 and 10 seconds. It's a load of bollox, and you are absolutely within your rights to tell them so, preferably through your insurance company. What a load of underwriter's noose-avoiding crap! They, like their client, are dead and buried on this one.
After all, he's hardly likely to be out driving, if he died the previous day, is he?
>> Edited by nubbin on Wednesday 18th December 10:26
After all, he's hardly likely to be out driving, if he died the previous day, is he?
>> Edited by nubbin on Wednesday 18th December 10:26
Forums | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff