Cyclist wins brain damage damages from dog-walker

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
On what basis?
Some do, aiui, but it's not the norm, and it usually relates directly to matters pertaining to the house, as opposed to being a blanket policy.
As you didn't know that house insurance covered personal liability (otherwise you would not have asked "on what basis") then your second post (some do) is based on minimal knowledge.
It is the norm.
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
As you didn't know that house insurance covered personal liability (otherwise you would not have asked "on what basis") then your second post (some do) is based on minimal knowledge.
It is the norm.
'On what basis' is opening a discussion, but thank you for your feedback regarding the assumption it caused you to make.

Perhaps you could clarify, I am covered by which of my policies? I don't have 'house insurance', I have separate buildings and contents insurance. On which one of those is it the norm that I am covered?

My Insurance Brokers don't seem to understand that I should be covered, were I, for instance, to be walking my dogs across a park and was sued because of my negligence in not controlling them. They seem to think that I would only be covered for matters pertaining to consequential damage caused relating to my house - say the postman was injured by a falling tile (which was the precise example they used, and which rather echoes what I said in my post).

They also seem to think that's the norm, however if I wanted to purchase cover such that I had protection in those circumstances, they would be happy to discuss it with me.

In summary, I checked online prior to posting, and have just spoken to my Brokers to check my understanding prior to responding to you.

To repeat my question, on what basis do you assert that she will be covered in those circumstances?
 

Drago

Legendary Member
'On what basis' is opening a discussion, but thank you for your feedback regarding the assumption it caused you to make.

Perhaps you could clarify, I am covered by which of my policies? I don't have 'house insurance', I have separate buildings and contents insurance. On which one of those is it the norm that I am covered?

My Insurance Brokers don't seem to understand that I should be covered, were I, for instance, to be walking my dogs across a park and was sued because of my negligence in not controlling them. They seem to think that I would only be covered for matters pertaining to consequential damage caused relating to my house - say the postman was injured by a falling tile (which was the precise example they used, and which rather echoes what I said in my post).

They also seem to think that's the norm, however if I wanted to purchase cover such that I had protection in those circumstances, they would be happy to discuss it with me.

In summary, I checked online prior to posting, and have just spoken to my Brokers to check my understanding prior to responding to you.

To repeat my question, on what basis do you assert that she will be covered in those circumstances?
As aforementioned, im with LV and they do provide such cover as standard. In their advertising they even use the example of injuring someone by accidentally poking then with my umbrella (not that I own one, so I should be safe). It's public liability cover, and most defimitely covers me and my personal actiions when away from home.

Your own cover may differ, and while it's not a standard thing it's far from unusual. Indeed, LV's own cover varies and the lesser policies do not include it - seems you get shat you pay for.
 
Last edited:

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
Leave my toilet habits out of it :tongue:

I guess we can nickel-and-dime to and fro, but the Trade reckons it's unusual, hence my post. It's certainly sufficiently unusual that someone who asserts "If she has house insurance she will be covered under that" should be challenged.
 

Tom B

Guru
Location
Lancashire
The choice of legislation and attack surprised me here, along with the defense.
Interesting case.

Wading into the @Drago debate regarding home insurance. When buying my house some years ago I went to see some Berk of a financial.advisor who I didn't use. But one bit of advice he did give that rang true was to always use defaqto 4+ Star insurer's. Home insurance is something I do spend time being picky with partially to ensure our bikes are covered and for things such as this. A friend was sued by a paramedic who fell down her stairs luckily the insurance dealt with it. Like many things cheapest doesn't usually equal best value. Insurance being almost a grudge purchase for many is usually massively price sensitive. For only a tenner more you can often get far better products I'm a bit of an oddball and think that home and contents insurance (£2.20 a week) and car insurance (5quid a week) is great value when you take into account potential claim vtalues. It's crackers I could spend as much insuring my phone and tablet as I can my entire house. The car has had two heated windscreens and a glass repair in that's two years so I'm actually probably in profit if you look at it like that.

Half minded to make up some "did you know" posters with this story and the Blackpool extending lead story and stick them on the local dog egg bins / park with an ncn through it noticeboard. If only to see the outrage on the local Facebook pages.
 
Last edited:
To repeat my question, on what basis do you assert that she will be covered in those circumstances?
As per Mr drago
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
Leave my toilet habits out of it :tongue:

I guess we can nickel-and-dime to and fro, but the Trade reckons it's unusual, hence my post. It's certainly sufficiently unusual that someone who asserts "If she has house insurance she will be covered under that" should be challenged.

If you changed "will be covered" to "may well be covered" [as an add-on, free or otherwise, to house insurance] then it wouldn't be far off the mark. Not to say it's universal, but nor is it unusual. This would be over and above occupier's liability, which I think is nearly always included
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
If you changed "will be covered" to "may well be covered" [as an add-on, free or otherwise, to house insurance] then it wouldn't be far off the mark. Not to say it's universal, but nor is it unusual. This would be over and above occupier's liability, which I think is nearly always included
Indeed. But Notafettler's Notforturning :laugh:
 
Top Bottom