A (Non-Boaty) Question for JFM that may also relate to boats in principle.

[jfm]

I don't have any form of written contract with the other parties insurer, only the situation where I am claiming from them.

Yup, therefore your claim is in tort for negligence, and you are entitled only to your losses, not to anything special like reinstatement. I therefore reluctantly refer you to my comment on this circumstance, namely "For sure your tortious claim against the other driver can only be £60k". Of course you can try for more and might be successful. And don't forget it is possible that the wording of your own insurance gives you something better, maybe the full 130k reinstatement value of the pink Mercedes. You'd have to look at its wording

Fortunately I do have an e-mail from the Management company stating in capitals that

"Regardless of whom we instruct to provide a hire vehicle and/or arrange the repairs, ALL of your losses shall be recovered by ourselves."

Therefore I am assuming that if I were to be hit by a bill I could just produce this and tell them to recover away.....! (Here's hoping).

That looks good doesn't it? However, there is devil in the detail. Go back to my illustration where the other side correctly says the X5 was too extravagant and they correctly pay £7k out of the £12k hire charge, and tell you to whistle for the rest. Then the X5 owners bill you for the £5k. Can you see the catch? You think that email saves your bacon? The £5k isn't "your losses", so the email you have promising you "all of your losses" is promising you the £7k not the £12k.

If the blue words had said "your car hire charges for the X5", it would be different. But they didn't. Here endeth today's lesson in the fine art of "wordsmithing".

 

[petem]

I expect the seller told him it had never been raced or rallied!

Or even 'launch control' started!

 

[petem]

JFM and Silverdee would you humour me by answering my insurance question....

Many travel insurance policies include a generic "reasonable care" clause. If an insured person was skiing on piste without wearing a helmet and suffered a head injury could this be regarded as not taking reasonable care? My question is what constitutes "reasonable care"? I seem to recall that to exclude a claim on this basis the insurer has to show that the insured was reckless. Is this right? Would not wearing a helmet be classified as reckless or would an insurer need a specific clause to reject claims on this basis? How about not wearing a helmet off piste would this make any difference?

 

[sarabande]

and there was I thinking that anyone who says

"Just ordered 2x rather eye wateringly bankrupting John Deeres this very morning"


must be a very big farmer.

Only to find it's about mobos.


I live in a rather circumscribed world !

 

[Mr Googler]

Ah that's good to know P on the Disco's future. So in the future the only way to get the quality feel of Disco4 will be to buy a RR? I seriously like the Disco4 - my brother SilverDee and I bought one for our father about 18mths ago and I borrowed it for a drive to SofF and was expecting it to be a bit of a shed but actually it was very limo. All round nice machine. Back then btw it was on something like 7 month waitlist though I think it came in about 5 months

I heard a great line the other day. "Land Rover.....turning owners into mechanics for over 60 years"

It's so true but I am on my 11th now

 

[jfm]

Or even 'launch control' started!

The ECU logs all launch control events. Mine has zero - I couldn't remember how to do it 5 mins after I first read the manual, and there is no point anyway.

I found the full service history and stamped book btw. All 100% complete. Your mate missed perhaps the best machine £13k can buy

 

[jfm]

and there was I thinking that anyone who says

"Just ordered 2x rather eye wateringly bankrupting John Deeres this very morning"


must be a very big farmer.

Only to find it's about mobos.


I live in a rather circumscribed world !

Haha, you're closer to the truth than you realise. He is a bit of a farmer. Lives on 15 acres in Cheshire and has a couple of tractors, with all those attachments you can buy a la kenwood chef but bigger. Mowers, a big and a small poo-picker, all that stuff. 5 bar gates and horses/donkeys/dogs over the place. No idea how many, and neither has he, but perhaps 10 items on 4 legs each. Not counting the sheep

 

[petem]

The ECU logs all launch control events. Mine has zero - I couldn't remember how to do it 5 mins after I first read the manual, and there is no point anyway.

I found the full service history and stamped book btw. All 100% complete. Your mate missed perhaps the best machine £13k can buy

I know. He bottled it in the servicing costs. I'm skiing with him week after next so will give him some stick!

 

[jfm]

JFM and Silverdee would you humour me by answering my insurance question....

Many travel insurance policies include a generic "reasonable care" clause. If an insured person was skiing on piste without wearing a helmet and suffered a head injury could this be regarded as not taking reasonable care? My question is what constitutes "reasonable care"? I seem to recall that to exclude a claim on this basis the insurer has to show that the insured was reckless. Is this right? Would not wearing a helmet be classified as reckless or would an insurer need a specific clause to reject claims on this basis? How about not wearing a helmet off piste would this make any difference?

I can't say for sure but I do know that FOS interprets "reasonable" very much in favour of the insured. Along the lines of, unless it is perverse/reckless it is reasonable. Furthermore, FOS tends to rule that if insurer wants something specific he ought to say so, eg a helmet. In my book you could argue that FOS go beyond the law, and let's not get into that one right now. So I doubt non-wearing of helmet, at least currently in a world where perhaps <50% of people in the lift queue wear helmets, would not void your cover based on the reasonable care clause.

But that's just a view, and I don't have wide experience of dealing with this point. If you care about it you ought to get better advice or ask Mr insurer (though, that will feel not a smart thing to do if the advice/Mr insurer's response doesn't say what you'd like it to say, so think carefully before doing it...)

 

[jfm]

I know. He bottled it in the servicing costs. I'm skiing with him week after next so will give him some stick!

Pah! Pathetic. I just did a major £2k service. On the dashboard computer everything from brakes to spark plugs to oil, I mean everything, was reading >15k miles so he wouldn't have had 1p of service cost for ages

 

[petem]

I can't say for sure but I do know that FOS interprets "reasonable" very much in favour of the insured. Along the lines of, unless it is perverse/reckless it is reasonable. Furthermore, FOS tends to rule that if insurer wants something specific he ought to say so, eg a helmet. In my book you could argue that FOS go beyond the law, and let's not get into that one right now. So I doubt non-wearing of helmet, at least currently in a world where perhaps <50% of people in the lift queue wear helmets, would not void your cover based on the reasonable care clause.

But that's just a view, and I don't have wide experience of dealing with this point. If you care about it you ought to get better advice or ask Mr insurer (though, that will feel not a smart thing to do if the advice/Mr insurer's response doesn't say what you'd like it to say, so think carefully before doing it...)

Thanks JFM, you've confirmed my suspicion. Of course the other danger of contacting the insurer is that you might end up up having to ask some call centre wallah whose opinion counts for very little.

 

[petem]

I can't say for sure but I do know that FOS interprets "reasonable" very much in favour of the insured. Along the lines of, unless it is perverse/reckless it is reasonable. Furthermore, FOS tends to rule that if insurer wants something specific he ought to say so, eg a helmet. In my book you could argue that FOS go beyond the law, and let's not get into that one right now. So I doubt non-wearing of helmet, at least currently in a world where perhaps <50% of people in the lift queue wear helmets, would not void your cover based on the reasonable care clause.

But that's just a view, and I don't have wide experience of dealing with this point. If you care about it you ought to get better advice or ask Mr insurer (though, that will feel not a smart thing to do if the advice/Mr insurer's response doesn't say what you'd like it to say, so think carefully before doing it...)

Likewise, on the same skiing forum people are worried that a Mulled Wine at lunchtime will invalidate their insurance based on a generic alcohol exclusion (i.e. if they have an accident in the afternoon). I believe that for an insurer to refuse a claim on this basis, the person has to be drunk and for this to have been the cause of the claim. I believe the FOS readily accepts that when people are on holiday they will consume alcohol and this is very much the norm and therefore not grounds for refusing a claim. Can you confirm?

 

[MapisM]

Can you confirm?

Now, why do I smell a bit of a guilty conscience?
Mind, not that I don't sympathise....

 

[petem]

Now, why do I smell a bit of a guilty conscience?
Mind, not that I don't sympathise....

Mapis, my skiing is bad enough when i'm sober so I have to restrict myself to a single beer at lunch time!

But if you took the drinking concern to its logical conclusion then you wouldn't have a drink in the evening as you could slip over on an icy path. Not to mention effect of the evening's apres ski on the morning after!

 

[Floating Preferably]

Likewise, on the same skiing forum people are worried that a Mulled Wine at lunchtime will invalidate their insurance based on a generic alcohol exclusion (i.e. if they have an accident in the afternoon). I believe that for an insurer to refuse a claim on this basis, the person has to be drunk and for this to have been the cause of the claim. I believe the FOS readily accepts that when people are on holiday they will consume alcohol and this is very much the norm and therefore not grounds for refusing a claim. Can you confirm?

Hi Petem, I am also ski-ing next week and have had other people in the party getting twitchy about helmets. I am an experienced (over 50 years!)skier, but will only ski on piste, and will stick with a 'normal hat'. People are getting totally paranoid about 'there may be a risk', most of us with boats realise there is a risk, but of a low percentage unless you either do something stupid, or are pretty unlucky, in which case our insurance will cover us. It has been very enlightening hearing experts like jfm clarify the ponts made here, it has been a brilliant thread that I certainly appreciate. IMHO people walking, and also riding bikes and crossing roads while listening to earphones really is a risk, a darn site more than most of us take in the course of normal boating.

 

[petem]

I'll actually be wearing a helmet as I've always worn one so am not used to anything else. But I appreciate that it's not a panacea to protect me from all injuries. I also find it keeps my head warm!

The point I was trying to make on snowheads is that it should be a personal choice and people shouldn't be driven by fear of not being covered by their insurance (unless the policy has specific clauses relating to helmets of which there are a few policies now being sold).

The dangers of riding his bike whilst listening to music is something I've nagged my son about many times (not that i expect he'll take any notice)!

Have fun next week!

Pete

 

[henryf]

I'm not sure I would be worrying about the insurance risk re: wearing a helmet, more protecting myself. Especially given recent events.


Re: Car values after an uneconomical repair total loss payout.

With newer cars it's pretty simple, how much will the car cost to replace. If you bought from dodgy Joe don't expect to be able to walk into the local main dealer. The same is true the other way round of course, if you bought from the main dealer then you shouldn't be forced to buy privately.

With older cars there is more variation in terms of what's out there. In our specialism, Porsches, we gave up the £300 subscription a long time ago. What Mr Glass or Mr Cap considers acceptable in terms of condition for a 10-12 year old car certainly wouldn't placate a Porsche buyer, hence we paid more to buy in cars than they suggested we should be selling them for

Do your homework and quote actual examples for sale.

Condition is more subjective than objective. If you've just shelled out £7k on a full engine rebuild then I think some consideration should be made as to increased value. If you've just spent £400 on a new windscreen it won't make any difference, one assumes a car has a functional windscreen. Tyres are a bit harder but they can at least me measured In terms of tread depth.

Bodywork is an interesting one. Do you make provision for the fact you've just spent £4k having the car re-painted or do you argue it has merely been brought back up to where it should have been anyway.

We have spoken to lots of people over the years from both sides of the fence, owners and insurers, usually an amicable settlement is reached. As John says the problem is that the person sitting in a call centre environment is rarely an expert.

If your car was some über special never to see the light of day again example then it is only right and proper that it was insured as such and an appropriate premium paid. It's no good paying insurance on a £1500 average value car only to then claim yours was worth £10k.

Henry

 

[petem]

I'm not sure I would be worrying about the insurance risk re: wearing a helmet, more protecting myself. Especially given recent events.

Henry, there's a huge amount of debate in the winter sports community over whether the use of helmets is beneficial and even after the Schuey accident there are many people who point blank refuse to accept the arguments for wearing one.

 

[jfm]

Likewise, on the same skiing forum people are worried that a Mulled Wine at lunchtime will invalidate their insurance based on a generic alcohol exclusion (i.e. if they have an accident in the afternoon). I believe that for an insurer to refuse a claim on this basis, the person has to be drunk and for this to have been the cause of the claim. I believe the FOS readily accepts that when people are on holiday they will consume alcohol and this is very much the norm and therefore not grounds for refusing a claim. Can you confirm?

I can't confirm as I have no knowledge of any precedents. In contrast, when I commented on "reasonable care" etc above I was working from (some) real knowledge of how FOS deal with clauses that have a "reasonable" based condition

Ref the alcohol, it would as ever depend on the policy wording. In general, if there is no specific "no alcohol" rule in the policy and instead there is just a "you must not consume excessive alcohol" type of rule then you would apply the Man on the Clapham Omnibus type of test which would mean a mulled wine at lunchtime wouldn't invalidate the insurance. The FOS might be even more generous to the policyholder than the MOTCO test.

I get the sense that some winter sports forum posters need to take a step back. These insurance policies are like liferafts - you buy them but you hope it is a 100% waste of money. I mean, if I rocked up to some of these ski parties and waved a fancy bespoke insurance that I'd just bought at Lloyds and it said "you are still covered and we will fly you home in a private jet if you break your back while skiing, even if you got totally lashed on 3 bottles of Mersault at lunchtime", they would treat me as a hero. A lot of these skiers would buy this policy then get lashed and then hit the black runs yelling "It's ok I'm insured", like the insurance is a special force field protecting them. They need to remember that the maximum benefit you'll ever get from an injury-based insurance policy will be zero net money (because the policy merely pays your costs), yet you have to endure a smashed skeleton. That's quite different from most other insurance, if you think about it. I mean, if your boat sinks you get the price of the boat and buy a new one so you're basically back where you started. But if you have a ski smash, the insurer pays for merely the financial aspect of your loss. You still have to endure the broken bones. Thus, the question of how much mulled wine to drink ought to be a personal pain-avoidance decision, not a decision made by reference to what your insurance policy says.

Incidentally as you know most boat insurance policies (at least in the UK) contain a condition saying the skipper must not be under influence of alcohol or drugs, but the wording of all that I have seen doesn't exclude a nice glass of wine at lunchtime

 

[henryf]

Henry, there's a huge amount of debate in the winter sports community over whether the use of helmets is beneficial and even after the Schuey accident there are many people who point blank refuse to accept the arguments for wearing one.

I can imagine that's the case. "My resistance to wearing a helmet is in direct relation to the size of the other helmet in my underpants"

There are even those who take off their shirts and discard their helmets at the first opportunity when riding motorcycles in places that allow such activity. Bizarre when having skin, muscle and bone ground away by Tarmac stings so much.

People on Internet forums talk a bloody good game until they've lost someone in their skiing party to death or seen bits of brains strewn across the road.

Anyway, so long as they are insured and it doesn't cost me anything they can do as they wish

Henry