![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:
throbb:jamesrt: Trying to charge the child was absolutely the wrong thing to do.
The insurance company should quite rightly wear the loss on that one. After all, that's the business they are in, and that's why they charge premiums.
But what if the owner of the car had no insurance? Who would ypu expect to pay for the damages then?
throbb: But what if the owner of the car had no insurance? Who would ypu expect to pay for the damages then?
tdgeek: Liken this to a golf club. Stray balls happen . The sports ground should have insurance that covers this.
Kids hits car, kid at fault. Car insurance company pays out, no excess to car owner , goes after causer . Causer is insured by the golf club/ sports ground , so the sports ground insurer pays out, sports ground pays an excess.
I've had minimal claims myself. Three car accidents caused by the other, no problem. Seems to me the sports ground did not cover that incident .
Is it foreseeable that a sports ground could have an incident caused by its partipants? I believe yes.
jamesrt:throbb: But what if the owner of the car had no insurance? Who would ypu expect to pay for the damages then?
The owner of the car.
If you own a relatively expensive asset, you can either insure it against damage, or pay for repairs out of your own pocket with the money "saved" from not paying the premiums.
That's always a choice.
tdgeek: Liken this to a golf club. Stray balls happen . The sports ground should have insurance.
SteveON: The child should pay. Just because someone has insurance, does not mean no one is at fault. Insurance companies sue each other for compensation all the time. This country believes in no ones at fault and its crazy. The kid damaged something, he should pay for it.
Galaxy S10
Garmin Fenix 5
tdgeek: Liken this to a golf club. Stray balls happen . The sports ground should have insurance that covers this.
Kids hits car, kid at fault. Car insurance company pays out, no excess to car owner , goes after causer . Causer is insured by the golf club/ sports ground , so the sports ground insurer pays out, sports ground pays an excess.
I've had minimal claims myself. Three car accidents caused by the other, no problem. Seems to me the sports ground did not cover that incident .
Is it foreseeable that a sports ground could have an incident caused by its partipants? I believe yes.
Fred99:tdgeek: Liken this to a golf club. Stray balls happen . The sports ground should have insurance that covers this.
Kids hits car, kid at fault. Car insurance company pays out, no excess to car owner , goes after causer . Causer is insured by the golf club/ sports ground , so the sports ground insurer pays out, sports ground pays an excess.
I've had minimal claims myself. Three car accidents caused by the other, no problem. Seems to me the sports ground did not cover that incident .
Is it foreseeable that a sports ground could have an incident caused by its partipants? I believe yes.
This.
It is also the way to address the "problem" - if there's a need to "do something" to prevent future accidents.
I've been on sports club committees, public liability insurance issues are always on the meeting agenda.
If the sports ground was council owned and managed - then it's the council's problem.
Galaxy S10
Garmin Fenix 5
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |