Public Liability Insurance claim

[derekpayne]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

I have today received the following letter from AXA.



“We refer to the above incident which rests with our letter to you 16 December 2008.

The time restraints provided to our insured have now expired without any contact from them. You will appreciate that for us to consider any liability claim our policyholder needs to comply with a number of conditions set out under the terms of their policy with us.

In the absence of any contact with us, we can only assume that they do not require our assistance and so we are now closing our file of papers.

If you have any queries, please contact us on the above telephone number. To enable us to respond to your enquiry more quickly, please quote our reference as above”.


From the wording I must assume that they did indeed have Public Liability Insurance in force at the time of the incident, otherwise AXA would have said something along the lines of them having no interest in the incident. Also their clients have ignored every bit of correspondence from me and the court, and probably from every other person who is owed money, so they are certainly not interested in a letter from AXA, yet AXA think that their clients are going to settle the claim themselves, dream on.


I intend to pursue this further with both the Insurance Ombudsman & the FSA as regulators. Why should any business or individual who has public liability insurance be able to get away with not having to honour an insurance claim just because they don't respond to letters from their insurance company, and why are AXA so adamant that they with not even consider my claim without their clients comunicating with them?


This sets a president as far as I can see, where if all public liability claims were ignored by the insured then no insurance companies would have to pay out!!


All comments or advise would be appreciated


Cheers


Derek

[RLJ]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

Surely an access road means a road for access and if you parked there you were blocking access to wherever. Has your landlord given you a letter to say that you have permission to park on an access road that you could submit to the insurance company.

[righty]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

Although they may try (& you would be surprised by how often they do) they cannot just wash their hands just because their client fails to fulfill his contract with them. If they did such a situation would be open to untold abuse by both the negligent party & their insurer.

No I'm afraid they are stuffed particularly as you have a witness. If the won't offer to settle send their client (to the last known address will do) & them a Letter Before Action giving them an opportunity to settle & if they don't issue proceedings

[Helford]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

Hi,

Bottom line, an incident has occured which has resulted in you incurring a monetary loss. You have followed the correct recovery procedure and obtained judgement in your favour at Court. Strangely, you have not pursued the enforcement as you felt such was effectively throwing 'good money after bad' - I am not sure why as you are confident that he could claim indemnity under his own public liability cover?. This, to me, would be the one action to get the policyholder to report the matter to his (alleged) insurers. AXA have made it clear that they are powerless to act insofar as Public Liability policies ONLY indemnify the policyholder on request and a public liability insurer CANNOT settle a third party claim where the incident is not reported to them. AXA have tried to prompt such a report, albeit to no avail. Regretably, this situation is frequently seen, not just with Public Liability insurance, but also with motor insurance.

The location of the parked car, the presence of witnesses and the like is not material. The incident happened, full stop. The issue is the failure to report.
H

[righty]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

The 3 party failing to report an incident whilst causing some difficulty for the claimant are NOT grounds for the insurer dismissing the claim. Re issue remembering to name the insurer as they have denied liability & let the court decide

[derekpayne]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

Hi

I have now sent a recorded delivery "Letter before action" to AXA, with a courtesy copy to The FSA, with copies of all the correspondence, giving them 14 days to respond, we will see what happens now.

[Paule]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

Can I just ask, what action you are taking against AXA.

You have already won the case against the original party.
Surely once they find this out they will just use this as their defence, that you have already had the case settled through court by way of judgement.

Wouldn't you be classed as vexatious and run the chance of the case being thrown out and costs being awarded against you.

It someone could clarify this for me, as it seems to go against how we deal with DCAs when they try multiple cases for the same agreement

PKea

[derekpayne]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

I have threatened AXA with the same court action as the other party, even though I have obtained judgment against the other party, it is not worth persuing them for any money, as they haven't got any, or goods as they are a limited company and have been evicted from their business for defaulting on the rent.

AXA on the other hand are taking the opinion that just because their client is totally ignoring thier request for information, they are going to wash thier hands of the matter, If we all ignored this request, then all public liability insurance claims would be in vain.

I have also written to the FSA enclosing all correspondence from both parties.

Cheers

[Paule]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

I have been having a quick look around and this case could on for ages.
There are allsorts of scenarios regarding liabilty on bins.
re council, bin collector, owner.
You could spend more money going at every angle, than you will ever recieve in my opionion

This is an excerpt from one council, obviously differnent councils may have diff policies.
But this is another different angle on your case.

Liability
16. In the event that, for instance, a third party suffers personal injury as a
consequence of the wheeled bin being left on the public highway, what might
then be the resulting liability for whatsoever reason if the wheeled bin is
either: -
(i) Left by the occupier outside the boundary of his or her property and is
thereafter returned by the Contractor to the same point from where it
was collected, or
(ii) Is left by the occupier inside the boundary of his or her property, but is
returned by the Contractor to a point outside the property boundary.

17. In considering liability, it is not advisable to be over prescriptive regarding
hypothetical situations, since any incident would have to be considered with
regard to the particular circumstances. Nevertheless, it is possible to give
some general guidance as to who may be liable in the following scenarios, as
follows: -

18. Scenario A: If the occupier placed the wheeled bin on the public highway
contrary to the guidance set out in Environmental Services Information and
an accident occurred prior to the wheeled bin being emptied, then probably
the primary responsibility for any injury sustained would fall on the occupier.
However, if the wheeled bin was left outside the boundary of the property by
the occupier, from where it was emptied by the Contractor and returned,
then both the occupier and the Contractor might be jointly liable, but in
different proportions dependent on the particular circumstances. As in most
cases involving personal injury, much depends on the particular
circumstances.

19. Scenario B: If the wheeled bin, having been left inside the property
boundary by the occupier, was emptied and returned by the Contractor to a
point outside the property boundary and an accident then occurred resulting
in an injury to a third party, then the primary responsibility might shift to the
Contractor. Nevertheless, the occupier would also be under a duty to
thereafter remove the wheeled bin from the public highway within a
reasonable period, again dependent on the particular circumstances.

20. In practice, residents are increasingly leaving their wheeled bins outside the
curtilage of their property so as to allow the premises to be secured and the
gates locked (Scenario A). Although this practice is not strictly in accordance
with the Council ’s guidance, since the wheeled bin is not at its ‘collection
point’, the wheeled bin is nevertheless collected, emptied and returned to this
point.

21. In the event of an accident occurring within Scenario A, it might be
maintained by the injured party that those provisions were effectively ignored
by the occupier and the Contractor to the extent that it became an accepted
fact that the collection point was, de facto, the public highway. In this case it
could be argued that the Council could be deemed to have acquiesced this
practice. Consequently, the Council might find itself liable on this basis to
any third party who suffered an actionable loss or injury resulting from a
wheeled bin being left on the public highway.

22. As mentioned above, no provision can be made regarding receptacles
(wheeled bins) being placed on the public highway without consent from the
relevant highway authority and without arrangements having been made as
to liability for any damage arising. Further to the above, it could be argued
that the Council has acquiesced to the placing of wheeled bins on the public
highway and should any injury thereby resulting be determined as
consequent upon such acquiescence, liability could attach to the Council
specifically on the basis that this was tantamount or akin to a breach of the
statutory requirement regarding the need to obtain the consent of the relevant
highway authority.

23. In any of the scenarios envisaged above, the person suffering such injury
might well be advised by his or her solicitor to claim against; the Council, the
Council and the Contractor, the Council and the occupier, or the Council and
both the Contractor and the occupier. In such circumstances the Council
would probably be entitled to rely on its indemnity from the Contractor under
the contract between the Council and the Contractor.

[derekpayne]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

Thanks for your input,

The bin in question was owned by the business next door who I have obtained judgment against, not by the council, so I would assume the info you gave does not apply.

Thanks anyway

[derekpayne]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

Had a letter from the FSA, and it would appear that as the other party have "failed to meet their terms and conditions with the insurer" by not suplying them with information regarding my claim, and ignoring all correspondence, and therefore the insurance has become "nullified". They go on to say "the insurance policy is based on good faith and where the insured has not met the terms and conditions of the aggreement, the insurer has the right to cancel the contract".

So that opens up another debate, if we all ignored any claims from thrid parties on any of our insurance policies, we would not have to pay any excesses and the company would not have to pay out!!

This makes a mockery of the whole point of having insurance.

Any ideas would be appreciated, they have suggested I contact the ABI for further guidance, this I will do.

Cheers

Derek

[righty]

Re: Public Liability Insurance claim

This is not the 1st time that the FSA have ruled such.

As you have no contractual connection to the insured or his policy how on earth can you be bound by it. No afraid the FSA have, not for the 1st time, got it wrong

The answer will be to have the present CCJ set aside & reissue your claim in the name of both parties