Clair Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Injured teenager refused insurance payout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre ZFP Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 For once I have to say I'm on the side of the insurance company. It's quite clear that the car was overloaded, there seems to be some contention if this person was wearing a belt (pretty easy to proove I would think, seatbelt sized bruises across torso) and it was probably a case of a jolly day out gone horribly wrong. While I feel compassion for those involved they were clearly outside the terms of the insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Quite right too.Its not often I agree with insurance companies decisions.In the scheme of things the cost of repatriation (less than the value of the car probably) is nothing compared to the hospital bills that the family have not been asked to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm sorry to hear of such a tragedy but a salutary tale on the supposed invincibility of youth.The comment from the stepfather is no more than to be expected I suppose:"Mr Maine said that the allegation that his stepson was not wearing a seat belt was “hearsay and not yet proven”. He is seeking legal advice."Taken at face value the statement from the insurers seems fairly unequivocal and 4 days after the crash I'm sure they will have done at least a preliminary investigation to come to that conclusion and if it stands then no doubt in due course we'll be seeing a 1/2 page spread in the Daily wotsit condemning the inequities of the French legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I dont think any of this is likely to come under French jurisdiction unless the family try it on with the vehicle insurers and even the vehicle could turn out to be UK registered and insured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Guerriere Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Six up in a Pug206 : the front wheels were probably not on the ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cendrillon Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 A tragic and sad accident indeed.I have just renewed my EHIC and noted that while they will cover treatment required while abroad the EHIC does not cover repatriation costs and they advise people to make sure they have travel insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyro Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 They can refuse to pay out if you Alcohol in your system, I presume its if your over the limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josa Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 It seems is the travel insurers who are not paying out - however, if the car was UK registered (it might be the same in France but I can only speak for UK) then the drivers insurers would be the ones to pay damages which would include any medical etc expenses, subject to a likely deduction for contributory negligence for the failure to wear the seatbelt - somewhere in the region of a 33% reduction depending on how the injuries would have been lessened by the use of the seatbelt, if worn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Âme Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 More details in Sud Ouest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Blooming heck, 3 of them thrown out of the car whilst it was flipping, one killed three with multiple injuries, only the driver and (front seat I assume) passenger escaped serious injury.Doesnt look like many seat belts were being worn, I wonder if there were two of them on the front passenger seat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Just the same as the accident that happened here a few years ago in which I was involved (the aftermath) when four were killed - overloaded (4 adults and 4 children in a Jeep Cherokee) most of the people didn't have seat belts on.The driver in this case will be lucky not to be prosecuted for manslaughter if somebody died for both the overcrwding and the seat belt offences, the driver in the local case faces 13 counts of manslaughter relating to the seatbelt x 4, the overcrowding x 4 and the excess alcohol x 4 plus 1 instance for speeding.I think the insurance company did exactly the right thing in this recent instance. Interestingly the insurance companies all paid out on the various claims from 2006 but they're suing the nuts off the driver! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Driver Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 In Tony's case, the French vehicle insurers were legally obliged to pay out for injuries/death of the passengers despite the actions of the driver. If this Pug is also covered by a French insurer, then they will have to do the same. It's unfortunate that, whilst the boy in question may have contributed to the extent of his injuries through not wearing his seat belt, he wasn't responsible for the overloading and excess speed which were the cause of the accident - that was down to the driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickles Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 [quote user="Sunday Driver"]In Tony's case, the French vehicle insurers were legally obliged to pay out for injuries/death of the passengers despite the actions of the driver. If this Pug is also covered by a French insurer, then they will have to do the same. It's unfortunate that, whilst the boy in question may have contributed to the extent of his injuries through not wearing his seat belt, he wasn't responsible for the overloading and excess speed which were the cause of the accident - that was down to the driver.[/quote]As Josa pointed out, it is only the travel insurance that is refusing to pay out: as you imply, I suspect that the vehicle's insurers are liable to pick up the tab ... after a fight and period of time.RegardsPickles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 He was indeed partially responsible for the overloading unless he was comatose and was put in the car by others.A tragic affair all round.Tony I think that I understand the times 4 but where does the 13 counts come from?Editted. it is clear now, 3 times 4 plus a speeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.