Quote:
Originally Posted by the highwayman
Not really quite sure what Roger is trying to get at with this post, other than that He's scared to mention My name, but each to his own. Anyway the link to Mr. Holden actually proves My point precisely. Essentially following Mr Holdens incident HIS RTA insurance HAD to pay out, and this link is the court appeal by Mr Holdens car insurers to re-claim half of the payout (for destroying the adjacent premises) from the insurance of Mr Holdens Employer, on the reasoning that the adjoining building was destroyed by the fire in Mr Holdens Employers building rather than the fire in Mr Holdens car. It is interesting that both buildings were valued at £1,000,000 which at the time was the maximum liability for damage to property (now £1.2 million) under the RTA.
Either through His own incompetence or an attempt to cause mischief, ( hopefully the former) Roger has either overlooked or ignored THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT in the whole article, which is naturally the statement that proves My point.
It seems very strange to Me that Roger has apparently been organising events for around 10 years less than I have yet has not kept up with changes (generally for the better) that have been brought in during this time. Whether these improvements will survive Brexit is yet to be seen
|
Stephen,
Do you have other info on this case or have I misread? It states on page 3 of the judgement that AXA, Pheonix engineering's insurers paid out over £2m to Pheonix and the neighbour to settle the claim. AXA then took action against UKI (Holden's RTA insurer) in Pheonix name to recover their loss as they felt Holden to be responsible and his RTA policy should cover the liability. In the first case the judge found UKI not liable, in the appeal that decision was reversed and UKI was felt to be liable and then in the third case in the Supreme Court even taking into account again the EU situation the appeal was overruled and the first judgement upheld that UKI was not liable and the activity undertaken was not "normal use of the vehicle" and thus not covered under the policy. It takes a bit of reading to understand it but I can't see that UKI the RTA insurer ever paid out anything? Do I have that wrong?
I assume if I haven't that AXA / Pheonix could persue Mr Holden personally for the damages if they could prove negligence, probably not in their interest as even if they won he is probably unlikely to have the resources for them to recover their loss and as he was an employee albeit probably not on pay at the time Pheonix themselves may have culpability by virtue of allowing the work to proceed and as AXA is Pheonix insurer it would be an even more convoluted circle! Phoenix also agreed to limit their pursuit of the claim to UKI.
Notwithstanding my second para I can't see how this illustrates the gold plated RTA insurance covers all eventualities? As far as I can see UKI the RTA insurer never paid a penny in settlement of the claim although they would have incurred substantial legal costs. The judgement also establishes case law for future similar situations.
Obviously this case is unrelated to the dyno testing as there is no employee / employer relationship and it was in a public space not private property where the public were excluded. Let's just be thankful that there was no need on this occasion to put the legalities to the test!
Paul.