Insurers of driver who badly injured Paralympic cycling cham

tim_wand

If this has been touched on elsewhere in other forums then I make no apology.

My blood Is boiling after reading an article on another site about the refusal of Edward Adams insurance company to pay out to rectify the devastation he caused Simon Richardson by refusing to pay £36,000 for surgery which would aid Simon's recovery and possibility of riding in Brazil.

Their poisition is as the operation is available (two year waiting list) on the NHS, then they are not liable to pay for private treatments.

I guess this is still being disputed through legal channels, but I would love to know who the insurers in question are as I for one would be ashamed to have any association with them what so ever and would ring and cancel any policies I held with them straight away , stating their position on this as the reason.

So does anyone know who the insurer is?

P.s Mods if someone can complain about poor customer service from Wiggle et al on here then I don't see why this post cant float.

cookdn

Almost certainly NFU Mutual but Simon Richardson is officially keeping stum.

I always hated claims involving NFU Mutual when I worked for Norwich Union as they would fight over everything and anything even when their insured was undisputedly 100% at fault. They were even worse than the Royal Mail (self-insured) and Lloyd's Syndicates (who would insure the otherwise un-insurable).

estampida

this is a good point:

Like all insurance companies they will not give out a penny until............

they are almost in court then they fold like a straw, this stops any unwanted legal precedents being recorded in the statute books for future court cases

so the next time someone like that is knocked off, they can argue the smallest payout possible and it wont be referenced to the last payout...

how else would these financial wizards pay for the F40 to drive to the golf course...

MattC59

Unfortunately, and I'd like to make it clear that I'm not backing the insurance company here, that's the way insurance works. Both party's medical 'experts' need to be in agreement, or it needs to be clear that one is incorrect. If its proven that he's going to be in significant pain for the two years, or it will effect his ability to earn, then I can't see the them not paying out.

diy

As above - There is pretty much a standard scale of payments for types of injuries and suffering. The standard approach is to put the other side to strict proof, leaving them to present the evidence.

estampida

but it is really unfortunate for the victims (who are the important 1's)

Because they have to re-live the experience, and recount what happens many many times, never mind the logs you need to keep, that will only make you focus more on the incident and the damage done, this is damaging to the victim and will make them ill or slow down recovery

and as most settlements take years they have to bear the lack of closure on the incident, and as it ramps up to the court date they also have the pressure of a court case....... (and then the insurance company will fold on the case, the day before it starts... nice)

the court has already given fault in a criminal case, its not rocket surgery or brain science.......

gonna +1 that.......

the playing mantis

im not condining it, but to be fair this is how the insurance industry works. if it didnt work in this way, we would all be paying a lot more in premiums. a terrible situation in this case, but if exceptions start occurring, however compassionate, then its a slippery slope. if there are no valid (from the industries perspective) reasons to mean he needs the op asap rather than having to wait for the NHS, then thats it i afraid.