Jump to content
The Dark Blues

On Pie and Bov

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Guys saying that the insurance are claiming it was the government that shut everything down not the covid I’m no genius on these kinds of things but surely that’ll no stand ?

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I didn't know there was a favela district in Rosyth. 😄 

Thanks Ludo that has cleared things up. Bottom line is that the evil b*****ds (technical term) that run insurance companies will do everything possible not to pay out but will quite happily take your

I think it's bollocks - not your summary Cobra.  Whether we voted Yes or No was irrelevant in terms of getting revenue through the gates - the Government rules put paid to that surely?  Maybe I'm

10 minutes ago, Deeboy08 said:

Guys saying that the insurance are claiming it was the government that shut everything down not the covid I’m no genius on these kinds of things but surely that’ll no stand ?

I agree how can they say it wasn’t COVID that caused the government to shut everything down.

I COVID am telling you that everything has to shut down, there sorted 😀

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't link the official 300-odd page document as I'm on my phone but here's the excerpts from the summary page for those that are interested:

The insurers’ Defences have a common theme on causation – namely that the proximate cause or “but for” cause on a counterfactual, was not the “insured peril” (as they define their respective “insured peril”) but something else and that something else is the nationwide outbreak of COVID-19 and the impact of it and/or of the government response to it.191 For those with “disease” clauses, it is the outbreak of the disease other than within the Relevant Policy Area or in the vicinity or locality in which the premises are located. For those with public authority/prevention of access clauses it is the impact the outbreak of COVID-19 had or would have had even without Government action. For those with “disease” clauses, it is the outbreak of the disease other than within the Relevant Policy Area or in the vicinity or locality in which the premises are located. For those with public authority/prevention of access clauses it is the impact the outbreak of COVID-19 had or would have had even without Government action.

215.The FCA’s case as to the correct approach to causation is set out in this section but the principal errors in the Defendants’ approach can be summarised as follows:

215.1.They overlook the need to have regard to the contractual context in which the causation tests are to be applied or to apply the causation tests in a sensible and realistic way. This is legally flawed.

215.2.For those with disease clauses:

(a)They artificially proceed on the premise that the outbreak in the relevant locality has to be a self-contained cause, as if the policy responds to outbreaks which are only in the locality (i.e. as if the effect of the causation test is to create an exclusion which is not explicit in the policy in circumstances where losses are caused by a disease outbreak which occurs both within and without the locality). This disregards the fact that such a clause (e.g. one with a 25 mile radius covering almost 2000 square miles) must have contemplated a situation in which, potentially at the very least, there was an outbreak within a 25 mile radius because it forms part of a larger outbreak either regionally or nationally.

B)They fail to apply the correct causation analysis, in that they fail to recognise that the presence of COVID-19 in each locality is an integral part of one single broad and/or indivisible cause, being the COVID-19 pandemic, or alternatively that the outbreak in each locality made its own concurrent causative contribution to the overall picture of a pandemic, which prompted the Government response

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ludo that has cleared things up. Bottom line is that the evil b*****ds (technical term) that run insurance companies will do everything possible not to pay out but will quite happily take your money at the start of the policy.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Double Blue said:

Thanks Ludo that has cleared things up. Bottom line is that the evil b*****ds (technical term) that run insurance companies will do everything possible not to pay out but will quite happily take your money at the start of the policy.

Exactly this. Insurance companies are the most devious, underhanded shower you'll come across. Very happy to take your money month after month but when it comes to paying out, they look for any loophole they can find to get out of it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Deeboy08 said:

Have we not got the extra cover for the disease?

Cover for diseases. I think they're arguing that because this wasn't a known disease, we were not covered for that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deeboy08 said:

Guys saying that the insurance are claiming it was the government that shut everything down not the covid I’m no genius on these kinds of things but surely that’ll no stand ?

Can covid speak?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

I can't link the official 300-odd page document as I'm on my phone but here's the excerpts from the summary page for those that are interested:

The insurers’ Defences have a common theme on causation – namely that the proximate cause or “but for” cause on a counterfactual, was not the “insured peril” (as they define their respective “insured peril”) but something else and that something else is the nationwide outbreak of COVID-19 and the impact of it and/or of the government response to it.191 For those with “disease” clauses, it is the outbreak of the disease other than within the Relevant Policy Area or in the vicinity or locality in which the premises are located. For those with public authority/prevention of access clauses it is the impact the outbreak of COVID-19 had or would have had even without Government action. For those with “disease” clauses, it is the outbreak of the disease other than within the Relevant Policy Area or in the vicinity or locality in which the premises are located. For those with public authority/prevention of access clauses it is the impact the outbreak of COVID-19 had or would have had even without Government action.

215.The FCA’s case as to the correct approach to causation is set out in this section but the principal errors in the Defendants’ approach can be summarised as follows:

215.1.They overlook the need to have regard to the contractual context in which the causation tests are to be applied or to apply the causation tests in a sensible and realistic way. This is legally flawed.

215.2.For those with disease clauses:

(a)They artificially proceed on the premise that the outbreak in the relevant locality has to be a self-contained cause, as if the policy responds to outbreaks which are only in the locality (i.e. as if the effect of the causation test is to create an exclusion which is not explicit in the policy in circumstances where losses are caused by a disease outbreak which occurs both within and without the locality). This disregards the fact that such a clause (e.g. one with a 25 mile radius covering almost 2000 square miles) must have contemplated a situation in which, potentially at the very least, there was an outbreak within a 25 mile radius because it forms part of a larger outbreak either regionally or nationally.

B)They fail to apply the correct causation analysis, in that they fail to recognise that the presence of COVID-19 in each locality is an integral part of one single broad and/or indivisible cause, being the COVID-19 pandemic, or alternatively that the outbreak in each locality made its own concurrent causative contribution to the overall picture of a pandemic, which prompted the Government response

This is the sort of thing that made me realise early in life that insurance was a waste of money and have never once had an insurance policy that wasn't forced on me. Must have saved thousands over the years!!!!

  • Star Post 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Travellingdee said:

This is the sort of thing that made me realise early in life that insurance was a waste of money and have never once had an insurance policy that wasn't forced on me. Must have saved thousands over the years!!!!

Sounds like FCA are backing the policy holders by my reading of above. Or can anyone else see it differently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, WeighorstsWang said:

Cover for diseases. I think they're arguing that because this wasn't a known disease, we were not covered for that. 

Not that I know anything about insurance but I’m sure this could be strongly debated. I think the first Coronavirus (SARS Cov) case was around in the early 2000s. I think even the variant of the virus was already known but not by the Covid 19 name (as mentioned in this Netflix programme from 2018 https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/my-secret-terrius-netflix-coronavirus-prediction-south-korea-a9429021.html). It just that there was no reported cases or available vaccine - which would arguably make taking out an insurance against such viruses very prudent!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad thing is, this is likely to be tied up in the courts for months upon months if not years.

Even if we get the required result, the insurers will absolutely appeal it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ludo*1 said:

The sad thing is, this is likely to be tied up in the courts for months upon months if not years.

Even if we get the required result, the insurers will absolutely appeal it.

Hopefully the insurers will wait till it’s due to go to court then pay out, this is the usual practice they wait till last minute hoping the insured won’t go as far as court, then pay out to avoid court costs 🤞

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that's why so many clubs opted not to bother with the insurance - they'd rather save the premiums knowing the likelihood of a payout was limited.  

In a previous company I worked for we decided not to renew our Employee Permanent Disability insurance and opted for self-insured instead on the basis the insurance companies did everything they could to contest any claims and the likelihood of needed to use it was limited.  Ironically, the year after we stopped an employee had a serious accident meaning we were left to pick up the tab.  Still cheaper than paying the premiums though.

Insurance is great for peace of mind but not so much when you actually want to make a claim!   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.