Wife hit a horse in Her BMW!!!!
Discussion
On a dual cariageway 
Happened back last December. Police called to the scene and new exactly where to look for the horse and owner as they have previously bean called out for similar escaped horses from a certain farm. The owner eventually admitted they had a horse that had just returned to it's field injured.
Now you would think that any insurer would get involved and sort this without it costing Wifey Her no claims bonus and the £300 waiver. Nope they're saying it would be to difficult to defend! FFS how hard is it to proof that an owners horse escaped from an open gate (at night) and caused mayhem on the adjoining dual carriageway?
Here's part of the letter She just received..............
"A recovery has not been made as the difficulty with this claim lies in the ease with which it can be defended,................... accidents with livestock can be defended on the basis of the previous behaviour of the animal. As such, the facts do not necessarily speak for themselves. In a matter such as this, the onus is on the party bringing the action to prove that the owner of the animal knew, or had cause to believe that the animal involved was prone to such behaviour. Historically previous court cases of a similar nature were all found in favour of the animal owner."
What the f
k is that all about? Bonkers absolutely bonkers. fk fk fkety fk fking Australian girls fking round spinning things on axles!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ta for listening.
Happened back last December. Police called to the scene and new exactly where to look for the horse and owner as they have previously bean called out for similar escaped horses from a certain farm. The owner eventually admitted they had a horse that had just returned to it's field injured.
Now you would think that any insurer would get involved and sort this without it costing Wifey Her no claims bonus and the £300 waiver. Nope they're saying it would be to difficult to defend! FFS how hard is it to proof that an owners horse escaped from an open gate (at night) and caused mayhem on the adjoining dual carriageway?
Here's part of the letter She just received..............
"A recovery has not been made as the difficulty with this claim lies in the ease with which it can be defended,................... accidents with livestock can be defended on the basis of the previous behaviour of the animal. As such, the facts do not necessarily speak for themselves. In a matter such as this, the onus is on the party bringing the action to prove that the owner of the animal knew, or had cause to believe that the animal involved was prone to such behaviour. Historically previous court cases of a similar nature were all found in favour of the animal owner."
What the f
k is that all about? Bonkers absolutely bonkers. fk fk fkety fk fking Australian girls fking round spinning things on axles!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ta for listening.
I would imagine that negligence would need to be proven on behalf of the horses owner/keeper (seeming you can't really sue a horse).
If the animal has done this before, and you can make a court believe it's more likely than not that it has, and the owner didn't take any steps to prevent it happening again, they'd be negligent. If they left a gate open or ignored a broken fence they'd be negligent.
If, out of the blue, the horse just took it upon itself to jump the well maintained fence and play chicken for the evening, it's not necessarily the person looking after the horses fault.
Had it been a wild deer, who would you sue?
If the animal has done this before, and you can make a court believe it's more likely than not that it has, and the owner didn't take any steps to prevent it happening again, they'd be negligent. If they left a gate open or ignored a broken fence they'd be negligent.
If, out of the blue, the horse just took it upon itself to jump the well maintained fence and play chicken for the evening, it's not necessarily the person looking after the horses fault.
Had it been a wild deer, who would you sue?
So basically your insurance co. cant be arsed, as it will likely cost them more in legal fee's then they would "probably" get back "if" they won.
I really think that its about time legislation was brought into play, where by if the insurers refuse to fight a claim against a 3rd party despite the insured party requesting they do, that they the insured party are not liable to pay the excess. But as will all things insurance if there is even a sniff of them loosing possible money in the future (see whip-cash claims) they would simply increase the base cost of premiums to account for it.
Sorry not very helpful, but feel your pain, as my FIL was in a similar situation a few years ago, where by he had a valid claim for at least 50/50 in an accident (other party was on the phone, over the white centre line, and likely driving to fast as well as tacking no avoiding action" all backed up by a witness pedestrian) but as he was passing a parked car, the insurance co refused to fight her claim, paid out and charged him the excess as well as doubling his policy.
I really think that its about time legislation was brought into play, where by if the insurers refuse to fight a claim against a 3rd party despite the insured party requesting they do, that they the insured party are not liable to pay the excess. But as will all things insurance if there is even a sniff of them loosing possible money in the future (see whip-cash claims) they would simply increase the base cost of premiums to account for it.
Sorry not very helpful, but feel your pain, as my FIL was in a similar situation a few years ago, where by he had a valid claim for at least 50/50 in an accident (other party was on the phone, over the white centre line, and likely driving to fast as well as tacking no avoiding action" all backed up by a witness pedestrian) but as he was passing a parked car, the insurance co refused to fight her claim, paid out and charged him the excess as well as doubling his policy.
KrazyIvan said:
So basically your insurance co. cant be arsed, as it will likely cost them more in legal fee's then they would "probably" get back "if" they won.
I really think that its about time legislation was brought into play, where by if the insurers refuse to fight a claim against a 3rd party despite the insured party requesting they do, that they the insured party are not liable to pay the excess. But as will all things insurance if there is even a sniff of them loosing possible money in the future (see whip-cash claims) they would simply increase the base cost of premiums to account for it.
Sorry not very helpful, but feel your pain, as my FIL was in a similar situation a few years ago, where by he had a valid claim for at least 50/50 in an accident (other party was on the phone, over the white centre line, and likely driving to fast as well as tacking no avoiding action" all backed up by a witness pedestrian) but as he was passing a parked car, the insurance co refused to fight her claim, paid out and charged him the excess as well as doubling his policy.
What makes you think the insured has any right to request the insurer waste money fighting in court simply because their insured isn't happy with the outcome?.I really think that its about time legislation was brought into play, where by if the insurers refuse to fight a claim against a 3rd party despite the insured party requesting they do, that they the insured party are not liable to pay the excess. But as will all things insurance if there is even a sniff of them loosing possible money in the future (see whip-cash claims) they would simply increase the base cost of premiums to account for it.
Sorry not very helpful, but feel your pain, as my FIL was in a similar situation a few years ago, where by he had a valid claim for at least 50/50 in an accident (other party was on the phone, over the white centre line, and likely driving to fast as well as tacking no avoiding action" all backed up by a witness pedestrian) but as he was passing a parked car, the insurance co refused to fight her claim, paid out and charged him the excess as well as doubling his policy.
Insurers have to mitigate costs, if it turns out that there have been lots of similar cases which show the insurer is likely to lose then they'd be bonkers to waste more money and fight a precedent.
By all means if your not happy with your insurers decision put your money where your mouth is and start your own court case against the other party there isn't anything stopping you.
Horse has done this before and repeated the act - owner negligent for preventing repeat.
Local Police have history of horse escaping onto main road before - witnesses in uniform who can asked what their response would be if the animal escaped again and an incident led to a loss of life.
Insurance company can't be arsed to do their job - check your policy to see if it offers legal cover. If it does call the legal helpline and ask them to put together a case for you.
At next re-newal move to another insurance company who will either A) do their job properly and/or B) provide legal help for such issues.
Local Police have history of horse escaping onto main road before - witnesses in uniform who can asked what their response would be if the animal escaped again and an incident led to a loss of life.
Insurance company can't be arsed to do their job - check your policy to see if it offers legal cover. If it does call the legal helpline and ask them to put together a case for you.
At next re-newal move to another insurance company who will either A) do their job properly and/or B) provide legal help for such issues.
When I was working at farming the case was that if one of our livestock got onto the road and a collision occurred it was always going to be the livestocks owner's fault negligence or not as he had duty of care to know where these animals were and to put them somewhere that they CANNOT get out.
I would consider taking a private case here if you have legal cover on your policy.
I would consider taking a private case here if you have legal cover on your policy.
I think the message here, is when driving, assume that nature doesn't respect the highway code and be prepared for the unexpected.
Many things can cause a horse or other animal to get spooked. When that happens, no amount of diligence on the part of the animal's owner, can guarantee anything.
I get your dissatisfaction regarding the insurers, but we have all known for many years, they don't really like paying out. That is why so many operate the 'knock for knock' approach. As for litigation, that sucks royally too.
Many things can cause a horse or other animal to get spooked. When that happens, no amount of diligence on the part of the animal's owner, can guarantee anything.
I get your dissatisfaction regarding the insurers, but we have all known for many years, they don't really like paying out. That is why so many operate the 'knock for knock' approach. As for litigation, that sucks royally too.
GSP said:
More importantly how the fk do you A) not see a horse on a dual carriageway, they are usually pretty open with with little that can surprise you... then B) not manage to stop or somehow avoid a large animal.
By simply reading the OP properly...k do you A) not see a horse on a dual carriageway, they are usually pretty open with with little that can surprise you... then B) not manage to stop or somehow avoid a large animal. A) Because it was dark,
B) It came from the other side of the road.
dickymint said:
Police called to the scene and new exactly where to look for the horse and owner as they have previously bean called out for similar escaped horses from a certain farm.
Insurer said:
accidents with livestock can be defended on the basis of the previous behaviour of the animal. ... In a matter such as this, the onus is on the party bringing the action to prove that the owner of the animal knew, or had cause to believe that the animal involved was prone to such behaviour.
It seems your insurers don't know the police knew it had happened before. Tell them.http://financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complai...
The Insurer is just being lazy and hoping you'll take the hit, complain in writing to your insurer and it that doesn't work the Financial Ombudsman.
They helped me when I switched insurers mid policy as they wouldn't cover my new car and they retrospectively debited several hundred £ for a windscreen replacement that was covered and paid for by my original insurance. The insurance company tried to fob me off but were eventually forced to apologise and refund the money.
The Insurer is just being lazy and hoping you'll take the hit, complain in writing to your insurer and it that doesn't work the Financial Ombudsman.
They helped me when I switched insurers mid policy as they wouldn't cover my new car and they retrospectively debited several hundred £ for a windscreen replacement that was covered and paid for by my original insurance. The insurance company tried to fob me off but were eventually forced to apologise and refund the money.
GSP said:
More importantly how the fk do you A) not see a horse on a dual carriageway, they are usually pretty open with with little that can surprise you... then B) not manage to stop or somehow avoid a large animal.
I just knew there'd be one! k do you A) not see a horse on a dual carriageway, they are usually pretty open with with little that can surprise you... then B) not manage to stop or somehow avoid a large animal. 
Maybe the f
k you don't see a horse is when one bolts out of the undergrowth straight in front of your car when you're doing 70mph. Appreciate the average lightening reflexed powerfully built Pistonheader would have sensed it with their magical sixth sense, deftly put the car into a long slide, added a dab of oppo and powerslid around the back of the horse whilst casually tossing a Red Bull at it, but normal mortals wouldn't have the chance to utter "Fu.." before slamming into it.Or were you there and know differently..?
pilchardthecat said:
My experience of insurers is that "difficult to defend" simply means that they don't care whose fault it was, but it's cheaper for them to pay the third party and accept fault on your behalf, and sting you for the cost via increased premiums than it is to fight for you.
EFA. 
GSP said:
More importantly how the fk do you A) not see a horse on a dual carriageway, they are usually pretty open with with little that can surprise you... then B) not manage to stop or somehow avoid a large animal.
Smaller animal but I ploughed trough a fox on a three lane motorway on a clear night with a full moon.k do you A) not see a horse on a dual carriageway, they are usually pretty open with with little that can surprise you... then B) not manage to stop or somehow avoid a large animal. When the fox made a dash out of the bushes it did so about 10 metres in front of the car, Mr fox got splatted, not much I could shave off in terms of speed at those distances.
The horse was probably not sat in the road reading the Daily Mirror waiting for a car to arrive but could have come out of the gate just as the car approached.
Ari said:
GSP said:
More importantly how the fk do you A) not see a horse on a dual carriageway, they are usually pretty open with with little that can surprise you... then B) not manage to stop or somehow avoid a large animal.
I just knew there'd be one! k do you A) not see a horse on a dual carriageway, they are usually pretty open with with little that can surprise you... then B) not manage to stop or somehow avoid a large animal. Maybe the f
k you don't see a horse is when one bolts out of the undergrowth straight in front of your car when you're doing 70mph. Appreciate the average lightening reflexed powerfully built Pistonheader would have sensed it with their magical sixth sense, deftly put the car into a long slide, added a dab of oppo and powerslid around the back of the horse whilst casually tossing a Red Bull at it, but normal mortals wouldn't have the chance to utter "Fu.." before slamming into it.Or were you there and know differently..?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff