a bit more detail

Rather debunks the covertly mutually consensual insurance claim angle…

Earlier, the judge was told Miss Grimes £6m damages claim was far in excess of Mr Hawkins’ insurance cover and, had she won the case, he would have faced bankruptcy.

Toys – still happy with your “good on her” angle if she had won the full £6M?

Does not sound like the defendant’s witnesses covered themselves in glory though.

Toys – still happy with your “good on her” angle if she had won the full £6M?

You like putting words in my mouth. I never said “good on her”. But yes I think going over his insurance max is not nice.

They would never have got or expected £6M, the amount sued for is always well overstated in these situations.

Ah so she sued for more so that she would get his insurance max.

You like putting words in my mouth. I never said “good on her”.

You’re are right, not “good on her” verbatum but

If she had won and got 6 million and lived the life of riley ….. I would have had a little cheer

Sorry, insurance claim angle does not wash for me (obviously conjecture, but so is your position) – why would the owner’s daughter make claims about her not beig invited/sanciton her to go swimming only to get found out in court (she lent her swimming kit) unless she was trying to save her father?

Ahh yes but you have conveniently forgotten that I qualified it several times with his insurance maximum, and I stand by it.

I knew I shouldn’t have opened this thread but I did. I may or may not have been drinking.

Who do I sue for my facepalm injuries? Either of you have STW 3rd-party liability insurance?

So just to claify, it was “distastful” for me to comment on her legal actions provided it was effectively against “the machine” AKA an insurance company; but it would be “not nice” for her to make the same legal action if it was directed financially at another single person?

I hope you havn’t been all “Daily Mail” and jumped to a conclusion based on a hunch and an assumption – then you’d be as bad as me!

yes schnullelieber you are ultra funny. well done.

And convert, no it was still distasteful of you.

And it was it not distastful of you to say going over his limit was “not nice”? After all she’s got to look after number one, unless you have been in her position how do you know what you might do?

I’d be having a long hard look at yourself. 😉

That’ll do on this, I’m even boring myself now and I’ve got a frame to weld.

because there is a difference between needing help and being selfish. But as Al said, she probs only asked for more to ensure she got his insurance max.
She has a right to test the law, she possibly might have asked for too much, other than that everything I said still stands, especially the bit about your actions earlier being distasteful.

If the insurers pay out, insurance goes up and while many of us on here can probably afford to pay more, there are plenty of people in the country that can’t.

If the insurers pay out, insurance goes up and while many of us on here can probably afford to pay more, there are plenty of people in the country that can’t.

I certainly can’t, which is why I’m perfectly happy to side with convert on this. Toys, you’re being a sanctimonious ass.

CZ +1

possibly the most futile pathetic argument I have seen on the internet for a while.

convert no point in arguing here – you ain’t going to change his mind – and he doesn’t even seem to understand way insurance works and how we all get screwed if such claims go through.