this is so unfair

[loribear]

Hi all, my hubby has just done a st johns ambulance course & passed bless him, but he found something out he did'nt like, apparently the guy teaching them said, if there's a bad accidenton the motorway say, & someone is in a car that's about to set on fire & the person in that car has a baf back, DON'T put them in your car even if it"s wet, which sounds cruel i know, but this happened to one guy, & the ambulance came but would'nt touch the injured guy in the other car, he had to wait for the fire brigade , who then cut this guys roof off so that the ambulance people could get to the injured man , & that guy who owned the car lost it, as you can't claim on insurance because that car had'nt been in an accident, & the owner of the good car was peeved as it was a new merc, ouch. Hope you managed to work out what i was trying to say, & just to say , be careful when you try to help someone, it cost you dearly. Lori

[Polly]

Oh dear! Insurance has a bit to answer for there!

[BroadScot]

Don't get me started on Car Insurance companies!!!

 

Iain.

[SueH]

As Esther Rantzen used to say 'Jobs Worth!'

 

I think we all have horror stories about insurance companies in one form or another.

 

SueH

[Guest]

........if there's a bad accident on the motorway say, & someone is in a car that's about to set on fire & the person in that car has a bad back, DON'T put them in your car even if it"s wet, which sounds cruel i know.....

 

At face value it does sound unfair that the good Samaritan has lost the roof of his car and can't get compensation for it.

 

 

Aside from that though, if you are ever first on the scene at an accident where the casualty may have broken their spine, do not move them under any circumstances, unless there is extreme danger in not moving them.

 

It's something that they really drum into you on first aid courses.

 

You mentioned fire, and that certainly could be a good reason to have to risk moving them very carefully as a last resort.

 

Saving them from simply being rained on is not though. By all means cover them with a coat or blanket to avoid their getting wet and losing body temperature, but do not try to move them from the car and sit them in another one.

 

I was involved in a very serious crash many years ago, and if anyone had moved me (even very slightly), before the emergency services arrived, I would now be paralysed from the wast down, as three vertebrae of my spine were shattered, though the cord was undamaged.

[littlesprite]

I always think Insurance companies are like any other conman, they are there to separate you from your money with every trick in the book to avoid paying any back.

 

Look at the no claim discount, they even offer a no claim discount protection policy as well, but what about the premium?

If they double your premium you will pay twice as much even though you paid discount protection and thought this stopped you paying more.

[donnygeoff]

This is my theory on insurance, car/home anything really...

 

say you pay £300 a year on insurance for the first year, then 250 for the next, then 200 for the third year (these figures are just to make my adding up easier)

 

You have no claims, your 4th year premium with this company they put it up to £700

 

What do you do, you think, sod them I am going somewhere else....

 

You use "compare the carpet dot com" and get a quote for £300 just like 3 years ago...

 

And of course you go for it........

 

Company number 1 has just had £750 of your money, and are quite happy you have left them

 

Company number 2, are hoping you don't make a claim and in 3 years they will put your premium up, so they take 3 years payments and say, "good luck " to the next one you pick...

 

[finny]

Iam not so sure its all about car insurance - we have a massive sue culture in this country towards the NHS and our emergency services ......one thing for sure its an **** covering exercise


Finny

[unclemike]

as a first aider of some 35 years i fully agree, only remove casualty from their vehicle if there is a life threatening situation,eg, fire risk , make them comfortable but dont mess about trying to be nice and keep them dry or warm in another vehicle unless they are mobile,this hinders the ambulance crews, easier to cover them on the ground ,

thus far as a first aider you are covered against sueing , put therm into your vehicle which in itself could be damaging to the casualty and you are wide open for a claim.

[donnygeoff]

Iam not so sure its all about car insurance - we have a massive sue culture in this country towards the NHS and our emergency services ......one thing for sure its an **** covering exercise

Finny

You have upset me now, with the **** exercise

Surely you should have signed of.....

flatulancefinny

[finny]

Now don't be upset my Head Crackin suppin forum friend - post posted @9-54 pm and I have had my pint pot of Horlicks in my defence

Flatoutandsoontobetinfin.........Hick

[donnygeoff]

   

 

i didn't want to say....

 

tinfinny

 

I was being polite  

[finny]

Agreed Mike First aider myself and would recommend anyone to take the course ,and the problem with car crashes are the unseen internal injuries ,I remember when I did my course the instructor quoting a motor cycle accident where a member of the public took off his crash helmet to make the casualty feel comfy .....unfortunately it was the only thing holding his head together ....he sadly passed away

do the course folks ......and make difference

Firstaiderfin

[Guest]

I'm a little surprised that so many replies on this thread have focussed on the Insurance Company's attitude, rather than the crucial points about not moving injured casualties in accident situations.

 

Yes, all  Insurance companies will always try to pay out as little as possible, no argument there, they will cheat you out of whatever they can.

 

....but if readers remember anything from this thread discussion, please let it be the importance of not moving injured people before the professional emergency services arrive, unless absolutely necessary, eg, fire.

[MauriceMynah]

Having worked in the insurance industry for a while, might I bring it to your attention that the reason insurers demand t's to be crossed and I's to be dotted is the number of fraudulent claims made.

Suddenly there was a pair of Rayburns in the glove box and a Pentax in the boot. You know the sort of thing.

In reality they like to pay both quickly and fully, it does their reputation good, it's just that they rarely get the chance!

 

Now I've got that off my chest, might I agree with Strow and re-iterate the importance of not moving casualties more that absolutely necessary, and learning the basics of CPR, and most importantly,...

however many idiots there are out there, don't become one of them. Take care of yourselves first, others after.

[ranworthbreeze]

Hi Dave,

I am touching wood all over the place.

 

I have never had to make an insurance claim other than motoring insurance for third pary involvement. In the past we have taken out the TV and applience insurance etc, but these days because of the cost of these items in real terms has reduced so much, it is hardly worth taking the extended warranty out.

 

It does help that I can use a screwdriver and have most of the specialised tools to undertake repairs.

 

Regards

Alan

[Guest]

Like Alan, I've been lucky enough to have only had to claim for car insurance.

 

After 41 years of owning and insuring houses and boats, I've never made a claim.

 

I think most people perceive home insurance quite differently.

 

For me, it's to give me peace of mind against worse case scenarios like fire and burglary.

 

I never pay for "accidental damage" cover because in the past I've just repaired such accidents myself, eg burst pipes, floods from a washing machine etc..

 

I never take extended cover on new purchases either, because also like Alan says, the insurance cover is now disproportionate to the reducing cost of things like TVs and Computers.

[Boaters]

I remember several years back an older lady was put in a police car in the rain and when the ambulance arrived they got the firemen to cut off the roof of a new Volvo estate as she said she had neck pain (36,000 )

[ranworthbreeze]

Hi Dave,

 

The last time my Xedos 9 was involved in a third party accident the insurance company wanted me to have the repairs in a large body shop in Sheffield that I refused to use, I had problems with them in the past, so they gave me an option of a Worksop dealer which was great and for me quicker to get to than going into Sheffield.

 

Regards

Alan

[MauriceMynah]

Poor old insurance companies cop the flack again.

I have no doubt that the assessors are trying to keep the bills down, and that some might be over enthusiastic in their attempts, but think on what the insurers have to cope with.

Apart from the "Rayburns in the glove box" routine, there are others trying to get their noses into that trough!

When you take a vehicle in for a repair, usually the first question you're asked is... "Is this going to be an insurance job?" Why do they ask that? Would it be because the price is different???

 

There are many examples I'm sure, where insurance companies may have been found wanting, but generally speaking they have to behave honestly. Not to do so would lose them hard won business in a very competitive field.

 

Insurance fraud costs us all, and very probably more that you'd like to think.

[Timbo]

My brush with an insurance company turned into a bit of a farce. I had a mint condition 1962 SAAB 96 Granturisimo...even the tools in the boot were still wrapped in their original greased paper. Whilst I was parked, some goon had thrown a cigarette out of a passing vehicle which had gone through my open window and set fire to my beautiful car.

 

The car was towed away by my local SAAB garage however the insurance company insisted that the car be taken to a Ford dealership which wrote off my car. The insurance company then sent me their settlement offer which was £250! The car had cost me £10,000 and was insured for £15,000. I refused the offer and ended up contacting the ombudsman. The insurance company insisted I could get an identical car to mine in the same condition for £250.

 

Whilst waiting to hear from the Ombudsman five months later, I received notification I had committed a parking offence in London the previous week...in the SAAB! I immediately telephoned the insurance company telling them I was rejecting their offer and I wanted my car back. I decided to leave them to stew a couple of days, but two days later there was a knock at my door and a representative of the company mumbled 'hello' gave an apology and handed me a cheque for £15,000. Apparently someone had realised the value of the car, bought it at a knock down price and had sold on. I still insisted on seeing the car, after all it was my property and it was theft. However just about all of the original interior had been replaced with modern and eventually I settled for a larger sum...in return for not taking matters further.

 

Perhaps I should have taken matters further...but you see there was this beautiful new Honda Prelude I had seen in a garage! 

[ranworthbreeze]

I have had a friend call into see me this morning before he goes to work.

He is a Postman, he collects from Post Ofices and premises with metered mail.

 

He mentioned that his personal insurance would not be renewed that was with the Co-op via a broker.

 

On further conversations it turned out the Co-op would not re-insure him because he worked for the Post Office.

 

Regards

Alan

[MauriceMynah]

Sorry Dave, we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

You have many stories of the insurance people ripping off the customer. I would think I could match them with stories of the customer ripping off the insurance company just as easily. As I said, I was in the insurance business for a while.

 

If you were to answer "hand on heart" which do you think is more common, the insurance companies ripping off their customers or vice versa I think you might just start to see it from my point of view. The only point I would raise to you is that it is you who pays for insurance fraud, and that indirectly it is those assessors who are trying to lower your premium.

 

As has been evident here, prove your case and you get full payout but given the number of fraudulent claims, you need to prove your case.

 

Finally you say

"What annoys me is that they are quite happy to take your valuation when they insure you and charge the premium accordingly, as soon as you make a claim they want to knock it down!"

It is your responsibility not to over insure, If you pay a higher premium because you have, then that's not their responsibility!

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

But it IS their responsibility to make sure allpremiums are honest and above board, and that means if you have a car with a forecourt value of £5,000, but a trade value of £3,000, the insurance company should be honest enought offer a lower premium in relation to the trade value of the car. That said, i`ve always insured my cars to the value of the cost and gradually decrease that every year. Shame they don`t decrease the premiums pro rata.

 

As for US HONEST CUSTOMERS paying for insurance fraud, personally, i think all insurance companies should be liable for the fraud, by investigating it thoroughly. and take the nessecary funding from the directors dividends and expence accounts, then we`ll see just exactly how commited they are to HONEST CUSTOMERS satisfaction. None of the insurance companies give a damn about insurance fraud, they just brush it aside as an occupational hazard, payable by hiking up customers premiums. If THEY were legally bound to sort the problem, they would soon do what it takes, no matter what.

 

Theives and robbers the lot of them. It`s no wonder the public no longer have any loyalty to them and keep shopping around on "Compare the meerkat" every year, i do, and every year my insurance goes down.

[MauriceMynah]

My experience as a claimant of insurance companies differs greatly from yours and my further experience from within the industry does not align with your reports so, as I said, I think we shall have to agree to differ on this one Dave.

 

I'm sorry Speedtriple, but no I cannot agree with you either. We all pay for crime. We pay for the shop lifters in our supermarket bills, in the same way we pay for fraud in our premiums. That's the way of the world.

 

I seem to be the lone voice on this so in the spirit of forum harmony, I drop the subject (though I shall still be reading the thread with much interest.   )