Can I choose cheque or voucher? aviva payout after shed emptied

[merlin100]

Hi all,

had my shed broken into last week and after ages of soul-searching, I estimated £3800 of fishing tackle stolen (barstewards).

My home policy only covers me for £2500 but thats not too bad as most of the stuff was a few years old and Im quite happy to replace it with £2500.

What I would like to know is if the insurance company (Aviva) offer me a voucher for a particular tackle shop ( or indeed any shop) do I have to accept it and do I have any rights to ask for cash?

I only ask because Im having recurrent nightmares that Im going to get a £2500 voucher with "Fishing Republic" printed on it - a company well known for selling nasty Chinese tackle at inflated prices!!

[maroondevo52]

Hi, merlin.

 

Sorry I've not got a clue, but your post made me laugh

I would think they will have to offer you a cheque for the full amount to spend how you wish.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[merlin100]

Thats what I thought maroon,

but Ive had a look at the terms of the insurance and it says its at their discretion. Have you seen the crap that "Fishing Republic" sell??

Im one of those guys that goes after specimen carp, - you couldnt catch a stickleback on the stuff they flog without it breaking!!!

[unclebulgaria67]

This information from the ombudsman should help you.

 

repair, replace or cash? - october

[merlin100]

Hi unclebulgaria,

just had a look and its interesting.

Much of the stuff I had stolen cannot now be bought new. Tackle companies change products like you wouldnt believe. What can be the latest rod one month, can become hard to replace six months down the line.

My stuff was anything from brand new to 10 years old. So a lot of it cannot now be replaced.

Its the familiarity that you lose too. I knew where everything was, which reel to match to which rod etc.

Oh well, start again.........

[maroondevo52]

No fancy taking up Bowling

[merlin100]

Tried that maroon - cant stop the damn balls sinking!!

[merlin100]

Another update,

loss adjuster came out today ( 2 hours earlier than appointment).

He said he was happy with claim but had to check claims register as we had only been with Aviva since last June. I pointed out that we were with Norwich Union for years and that Aviva had bought them out.

Hes just rung me back (about 2 hours after leaving) saying hes confirmed what Ive said and has offered me a voucher for the limit of my shed insurance (£2500) or a cheque for £2150. This is because the tackle shop they use offers Aviva a 15% discount.

Seems a bit unfair that I should suffer a penalty of £350 because as I said to him, most of this stuff cannot now be replaced and I would have to buy on a like for like basis.

But anyway, I can get a lot of stuff on Ebay for that money ( not through Paypal, but by buying reasonably local and paying cash on collection).

[Mossycat]

If the shop that they supply the voucher from does not offer or cannot provide a suitable replacement then you have an argument for a cheque to the full value and NOT net of any discount that they offer the insurer.

 

The underlying principle of insurance is to put you back into the position you were in prior to the loss, if their suggested solution does not do this then I would argue it out.

 

Mossy

[merlin100]

Yes I did wonder about that mossycat, point taken.

Think I will cut my losses though, most of the stuff I cannot replace either, the main reason being age.

But all in all, Ive come out on top by far as long as I use the money wisely, which I certainly intend to do.

I can get a lot of good gear for £2150 - might even gets a weeks fishing out of it too:D

[maroondevo52]

Good stuff, Merlin, give me a shout if you need anyone to eat the fish.

[merlin100]

Just an update guys.

I posted some time ago on here about a driver deliberately mounting a pavement and causing substantial injuries to my son.

Three witnesses saw it and went to court to substantiate it.

The driver told the court a pack of lies and the Magistrates saw through him and actually called him a liar and found him guilty.

 

Now we are 2 and a half years on............

 

My sons solicitor has had enough of the drivers insurance company ignoring her and has applied to the court to set a timescale for the insurance company to act.

The insurance company have now been in touch with their client and it seems he has repeated the same story he tried in court. Because of this, the insurance company are now denying any liability.

My sons solicitor has replied saying that their client tried the same story in court and was found to be lying and duely convicted, and that she suggests they get copies of the court transcripts. They have ignored her.

 

My question is this -

About a year ago the insurance company offered to settle on a 50/50 basis but this was turned down. Could this be construed as admitting liability?

They also paid my son a £1500 interim payment.

 

We have a final medical consultants report due in a week or two ( consultant agreed by both parties). The consultant has stated throughout that one particular injury to my son ( a badly shattered ankle) will never heal correctly, and that he will, to a certain extent, be permanently disabled with that injury. He also says that the pain my son is still suffering could possibly be overcome by an operation to "fuse" the ankle bones - but this will mean that my son will never have normal flexibility in the ankle and will consequently walk with a limp.

 

I see on here a lot about how insurance companies seem to be willing to settle claims on a no-fault 50/50 basis. So maybe they were trying to get away with paying as little as possible?

 

Also, does anyone have any experience in how an insurance company has to assess for future disability? My son was 19 when the driver hit him. Does this mean that the insurance company can be made to pay a sum for the next 46 years of his working life? The last consultants report stated that he advised against seeking work in warehouses, on building sites and anywhere where heavy manual work may be involved. This is the same consultant throughout, but for whatever reasons he has, he does not want to make a final assessment until two years have passed from the date of the accident.

 

My sons solicitor has said that the actual incident ( the night in question) should realise around £10000 in damages but will not ( understandably) speculate further until the final consultants report is recieved.

A previous poster suggested I look at the Ogden Tables to try and assess future damages ( thank you whoever you were) but they are difficult to follow and take into account a subjects future based on qualifications and possible earnings potential.

My son has no qualifications as such and is more a manual worker.

I will be most grateful if anyone on here could shed some light on the future of this claim. Im not looking for anything definate, just general views.

Thanks all.

[Endymion]

Your sons solicitors are quite right and cannot speculate on what your sons claim will be in respect of future loss of earnings and/or a smith -v- manchester award until the medical evidence is finalised.

 

I would ask your sons solicitors if they have asked for an initial trial on liability only, which will get that bit out of the way and leave it open for the medical evidence to be sorted and damages to be ground out (unless you lose, but that doesn't sound very likely). You will also be more likely to get interim payments if your son needs money in the short term.

 

It is fairly pointless trying to guess what the final amount will be until the Consultant instructed by your son gives his final prognosis on treatment, recovery period, ongoing and permanent disabilities and prospects on the open labour market.

 

If you try and rush the medical expert it may well be the case that he might give a prognosis that you base the settlement on, but later, due to not leaving the injury long enough to see if the injuries ARE permanent and they are permanent but this is not what the expert has said, then you have settled at too low an amount and once you have settled, you cannot go back asking for more because the injury is worse than you feared.

 

If, as it would seem, your sons injuries are significant then the case will take a long time to settle for the reasons above. A good solicitor will not rush a settlement until the expert is sure he can say what the full prognosis is. It may well be the case that your son has to have years of treatment to see what the outcome is before a settlement can be reached.

 

Despite people thinking that solicitors drag things on to make more money, in actual fact, solicitors make more money the sooner the case is settled and it certainly is not in their best interests to wait years before they get paid.

[merlin100]

Hi endymion, thanks for replying.

We havent rushed the solicitor or the consultant, and I have told my son throughout to expect a lengthy battle.

At the onset of this, when the driver was 17 years old, I told my son that the driver wouldnt get much of a punishment in the Magistrates Court mainly because of his age, but that didnt matter, it was the conviction that was all-important especially for future reference when ( not if) the insurance company try to negotiate their potential loss.

I also told my son that the real punishment will come when he finally recieves compensation and the insurance company go after their client for repayment as they will then say that they never insured their driver to drive carelessly ( as was the conviction, the CPS wouldnt go for dangerous driving as they had to establish intent and I also agree that it was too risky a move).

About 6 months after this conviction, the driver was convicted of drink-driving and got a 9 month ban - so his premiums must be huge already!

What is most annoying is the insurance companys refusal to respond except to deny liability. This is frustrating and delaying our case.

One worry at the moment is our solicitors application to the court to set a timescale for the insurance company to respond even though we are awaiting the final report. Although the consultant has told my son that nothing has changed, we still have to recieve this in writing. So surely the insurance company could simply state that they have yet to recieve this report so how could they be expected to act? But maybe there are other considerations.

They have now refused a further Interim payment based on their clients explanation to them. My son hasnt worked since the accident. He is in regular pain with his ankle and is afraid to take on any job that may involve manual lifting. He has also been taking painkillers since the accident.

Hes now 21, and getting annoyed further by the antics of the insurance company. All I can do is keep telling him to be patient, but even that is getting a bit old-hat to him now.

I suppose we are about to enter the final phase of an insurance claim - which is to argue a settlement. From the experience we have already had, we expect a initial derisory offer which will be turned down. If the previous experience is anything to go by, it wouldnt surprise me if it all ends up in court for a judge to set an amount.

One thing that does worry me though - Im sure the insurance company, when they finally do cough up, will want him to accept a "full and final" payment so they can walk away from any further liability. This Im not so sure about as it seems that somewhere in the future my son is going to have to suffer a series of medical operations in an attempt to "strengthen" his ankle, and even the consultant has said he cannot speculate on the outcome of any operation in future years.

Another concern is this - on the night of the accident when my son was in hospital. The police only took a statement from the driver in which he said my son was blind drunk ( he had only finished work about an hour earlier) and that he was larking about by laying in the road. He wasnt, he was walking on the pavement as the 3 witnesses stated when in court. The witnesses were asked for nothing more than their names and addresses.

In a rare response, the insurance company have said they are to get the police report from that night, but that report is based on the drivers explanation which LATER was disproved. So maybe a further battle is on the way.

But all in all, we are a long way down this road now, so maybe this year will see some sort of compensation. I hope so, he could do with something good happening.

Cheers endymion.

[Endymion]

Merlin100, I take it from your reply that the solicitors application to have a timetable set is in fact them issuing proceedings. This will have the desired effect and the Court, after the Defence has been filed by the Defendant and then Allocation Questionnaires filed, will set out directions that each party has to adhere to.

 

As I said before, if liability still remains in dispute once the defence has been filed then I would ask to see if your solicitors think it would be a good idea to have liability tried as a preliminary issue (it is likely that this is what will be done in any event).

 

This means that the Court will fix a trial date and the Court will decide who is at fault etc. Once the judgment is handed down then further directions are issued to progress the case towwards a structured financial settlement.

 

However, prior to any trial, unless they have admitted liability, the defendant is under no obligation to make any interim payments. As such, the trial on liability will allow (if you are succesful) to obtain further interim payments. However, you will only get interim payments that are reasonable and for an amount that will not be considered unrealistic for your son to recover at the final hearing i.e. you can't ask for an interim for £100,000 when you will probably be only awarded £10,000 eventually.

 

Hope this helps.

[merlin100]

Hi again Endymion and thanks for replying so quickly.

I guess Im just wondering why the insurance company would dig its heels in like it has and point-blank refused to respond, or deal with any requests.. Is this usual?

Surely they would at least look at whatever evidence there is and deal with that rather than stick to what their insured said even though its been pointed out to them that there insured is a proven ( in and out of court)liar and has fed them the same story?

Would you say that this is standard practise?

All in all it really doesnt make much difference at this stage - we are still awaiting the final consultants report. I do wonder if that will really make much difference to them though.

If they carry on acting as they do by relying only on their insured statement, and refusing to act on further evidence, could they be censured for this say by a judge at a later date?

They have been pointed in the right directions by our solicitor but refuse to investigate further. She has even suggested they get copies of the court transcripts. They have ignored her.

[Endymion]

You have to remember that the insurance company has to believe what their insured is saying unless proven otherwise. Admittedly on this one it does look like the TP is telling a pack of lies, but they need some really strict forms of proof to confirm that the TP is lying.

 

I don't understand why, if liability is in dispute, your sons solicitors have not requesting and viewed a copy of the police report then disclosed it to the defendants - especially in light of the fairly serious injuries your son has sustained and the conflicting reports of the accident circumstances. Requesting a copy of the report, once available, would be the first thing I would do if I was representing your son.

 

Also some insurers do take a hard line on claims whereas some take a soft line and think that it is best to reach an early and amicable settlement to avoid costs. It can also be the case that you just get a very belligerent claims handler who doesn't like the solicitors you use because they have ****ed them off in the past etc... i.e. Lots of different reasons can affect the way the claim is handled.

 

Best thing to do is keep in contact with your solicitors to keep them on the ball and let them get on with it, although I would be demanding they obtain a copy of the police report asap if not already obtained.

[merlin100]

Hi endymion,

funnily enough, the police report and especially the court transripts were mentioned by me to our solicitor.

The police report on the night might cause initial problems due to my previous explanation.

Her answer regarding the court transcripts was that they are expensive to obtain ( I dont know how much, but I offered to pay for them personally were they not ridiculously priced) and that she doesnt feel that her firm, or myself, should be incurring these costs.

Its a strange answer that I see no purpose for. But then maybe Im missing something else.

[Endymion]

Whether the police report causes you problems or not, it is very likely that it will be used in evidence by one of the parties. As such, surely it is better knowing what is on the police report before you litigate to give you an idea as to how the case may pan out. Your sons solicitors can hardly give you full advice if they haven't all the facts to hand.

 

Simply put, if it helps you then it's worth the while getting. If it doesn't help your case, you make inroads to counter the evidence by obtaining your own evidence i.e. witness evidence etc.

 

Police reports and transcripts and the cost of such documents are classed as disbursements. These should be born by the party i.e. your son until liability has been sorted, then the paying party will have to pay for them. Your solicitors don't want to pay for them as they will have to bear the costs of the documents until such time as the case is settled, which could be for a prolonged period of time.

 

It's a must that all documents relevant to the proceedings are obtained and in any event, once the directions form the Court are handed down, the first thing that will be required of the parties is disclosure of relevant documentation.

 

The police report and Court transcripts will be in the control of the Defendant (and to some extent the Claimant as well) and he/you will be duty bound to disclose them upon request by the Claimant/Defendant. Failure to do so and the party can apply for disclosure and a costs penalty against the Defendant or Claimant for the cost of the application.

[merlin100]

Yes I realise this endymion. Just to clarify things, am I entitled ( or I should say my son) to obtain the court transcripts privately? And do you have any idea of the costs?

[Endymion]

I don't do criminal law but off the top of my head you need to obtain the permission of the Court to obtain a transcript. There is a form to do this I believe and your solicitors should have a copy.

 

In regards to cost I believe that it is similar to that of the civil courts in that it is about £500 to £1000 per day at the hearing i.e. 4 days in court = £4,000.

[Bookworm]

Sorry for butting in, but why would he need a transcript? Surely, if the other party has been found guilty in court, then all that's needed is a copy of the court's decision? If the courts have found him guilty, then his insurance will have no option but to comply. :-?

[Endymion]

Sorry for butting in, but why would he need a transcript? Surely, if the other party has been found guilty in court, then all that's needed is a copy of the court's decision? If the courts have found him guilty, then his insurance will have no option but to comply. :-?

 

In general, a criminal conviction does not lead to an automatic finding of guilt in a civil action.

 

For instance, if a driver is convicted of drunk driving and the circumstances are that the driver ran over someone in the road, but the person lying in the road was blind drunk and asleep, then it is likely that dispite the driver being drunk, the civil court will find that the pedestrian contributed to his injuries by lying in the road and so also liable.

 

Also, the conviction will only say driving without due care etc and will not give the full details of the incident and so the civil courts will take even less notice of the convition unless a party can give details as to the criminal case i.e. by an approved transcript of the case.

[Bookworm]

Agree on principle, but there is no civil action at the moment, only an insco stalling on the say-so of their customer. ;-)

[sailor sam]

I've just come across this and I must say from the OPs original post, i'm surprised that this didn't end up in Crown Court beacuse of it's apparent seriousness. I would of thought that 'deliberately mounting a pavement to run someone over' is boardering on attempted murder. I also can't see how the insurance company can attempt to settle on a 50/50 basis if their policy holder acted with intent and there were witnesses to the incident. Have you got the right solicitor?

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.