Gob has had a motorbike accident

[Gob]

Remember this thread from way back yonder?

Hopefully, hopefully, at the end of next month I get my pay out from the Taxi driver's insurance company.

[Daisy]

Two years???

[The Hen]

Aye.

Despite admitting liability for the machine being a write-off and paying the entire costs of his bike, helmut and leathers, they decided that they would contest the part of the accident concerning the broken flesh, blood and bones that were sitting inside and on top.

Somehow, they weren't responsible for that portion of the accident.

[oldr_n_wsr]

And you expected different?

[Crackpot]

They paid for a German guy?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Aye.

Despite admitting liability for the machine being a write-off and paying the entire costs of his bike, helmut and leathers, they decided that they would contest the part of the accident concerning the broken flesh, blood and bones that were sitting inside and on top.

Somehow, they weren't responsible for that portion of the accident.

I hope you didn't neglect to claim loss of consortium?

[Andrew D]

Aye.

Despite admitting liability for the machine being a write-off and paying the entire costs of his bike, helmut and leathers, they decided that they would contest the part of the accident concerning the broken flesh, blood and bones that were sitting inside and on top.

Somehow, they weren't responsible for that portion of the accident.

On what basis? Offhand, three possibilities (not necessarily mutually exclusive) occur to me:

(1) The taxi driver's liability insurance policy covers only property damage, not personal injury, for which the taxi driver is liable.

(2) The insurer disputes the extent (seriousness, etc.) of the injuries.

(3) The insurer disputes the total costs resulting from the injuries.

Does Australia (or your sub-national jurisdiction) have anything like what in the US is conventionally known as "bad faith" (fully known as "breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" and sometimes also called, rather oxymoronically, "tortious breach of contract")?

[Gob]

I really don't know Andrew, I'll await Hen awaking.

I think it was just all a stalling plan to keep the money in their accounts for as long as possible. They didn't have a leg to stand on. (I only had one for a while! )

[Joe Guy]

Is it medical costs that you are trying to recover? I didn't think you had that.

Or is it money for punitive damages?

If so, how is that determined in your part of the world?

[Gob]

Both.

And fuctifino.

[Joe Guy]

Both.

And fuctifino.

I didn't realize that you spoke Italian.

I learn something new every day here at Plan B....

[Sean]

Wouldn't your medical bills have been sorted by Work Cover? It should be then chasing the insurance company for those...

[Gob]

Nah, work cover refused as I "hadn't gained consent to deliver the letters on my way home off my line manager."

I was doing it as a favour to support a client ferfuxake!

[Joe Guy]

I was doing it as a favour to support a client ferfuxake!

And you also speak German?

[Gob]

I'm a man of many talents.

[Lord Jim]

I'm a man of many talents.

That's a fact...

I've heard it said that he can climb a sheer rock face with baby twins strapped to his back....

[The Hen]

Aye.

Despite admitting liability for the machine being a write-off and paying the entire costs of his bike, helmut and leathers, they decided that they would contest the part of the accident concerning the broken flesh, blood and bones that were sitting inside and on top.

Somehow, they weren't responsible for that portion of the accident.

I hope you didn't neglect to claim loss of consortium?

Oh no Siree, I did not neglect to raise that immediately and raise it once more!

[Sean]

...as the actress said to the Bishop.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[quote="The Hen] Oh no Siree, I did not neglect to raise that immediately and raise it once more![/quote]

Well if the court reads this forum you've lost out on that claim - raising it twice immediately indicates no loss of consortium whatever!




eta and I think Gob's right. The potential loss from injury liability should be a whole lot more than property damage and therefore they want to delay settlement. Also, property damage fixed is fixed; admitting injury liability can go on for years (therapy, continuing difficulty walking, inexplicable disinterest in tennis - there's a new claim right there!)