Editor's Blog1 min ago
Dissatisfied with insurance company's payout folowing motor accident
This is a theoretical question but is based upon a recent U.S court case (where practise there may well be different).
Insurance Co A refuses to pay their insured B the total amount claimed.
Presumably B has the right to take action in court against A for breach of contract?. If B succeeds, and A refuses to pay more, that presumably is actionable. - or, proceed direct against the third party,C.
Most claims are settled eventually, albeit some leaving unhappiness, but there must be cases where insureds are so convinced of the rightness of their case that it gets taken further.
Any comment?
Insurance Co A refuses to pay their insured B the total amount claimed.
Presumably B has the right to take action in court against A for breach of contract?. If B succeeds, and A refuses to pay more, that presumably is actionable. - or, proceed direct against the third party,C.
Most claims are settled eventually, albeit some leaving unhappiness, but there must be cases where insureds are so convinced of the rightness of their case that it gets taken further.
Any comment?
Answers
1 to 2 of 2
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Segilla. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Now wishing to take on Ethel who has been consistently right,
If A refuses to pay the whole of the claim then B can go after C for the difference and this is [commonly] done for the loss of the no claims bonus in the UK. Clearly B has to have a cause of action against c - usually but need not be - negligence and can't say 'he damaged me' - I think that is Letang v Cooper. The right to sue - is it prorogation? is not given up under that 1838 case (Preston) if they dont pay the whole amount.
And yes B can go after A for breach of contract - but not recover the same amount of money from both. Although Denning is now dead - he was in the forefront of not allowing insured parties - this is the insurance co here - evade liability and impose it on uninsured parties - that would be B or possibly C here. Kinda made sense but judges are much more afraid for their PENSIONS nowadays and run like frightened rats when the govt says Boo!
erm that's about it.
PP
If A refuses to pay the whole of the claim then B can go after C for the difference and this is [commonly] done for the loss of the no claims bonus in the UK. Clearly B has to have a cause of action against c - usually but need not be - negligence and can't say 'he damaged me' - I think that is Letang v Cooper. The right to sue - is it prorogation? is not given up under that 1838 case (Preston) if they dont pay the whole amount.
And yes B can go after A for breach of contract - but not recover the same amount of money from both. Although Denning is now dead - he was in the forefront of not allowing insured parties - this is the insurance co here - evade liability and impose it on uninsured parties - that would be B or possibly C here. Kinda made sense but judges are much more afraid for their PENSIONS nowadays and run like frightened rats when the govt says Boo!
erm that's about it.
PP
1 to 2 of 2
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.