Insurance Company disclaimer

Just Jack

If Joe Soap receives a Letter from an Insurance Company as follows

Without admission of liability

I agree to accept from

---

per Insurance Company, the sum of --- which I agree to accept in full discharge and satisfaction of all claims and demands whatever which I do have, or may have, upon the said

---

In respect of, or consequent upon and accident causing personal injury and / or damage to my property on or about the -- January 212




Signed

Address










Witness

Date










Not only sign but have witnessed, is this set in stone or can Joe refuse and still be paid? This was very minor with only a wing mirror broken, and no question of injuries

Tom Young

Charter. Do what your gut tells you to do.

Procrastastudy

I'd personly be worried that its taken over 1800 years to arrive.

Just Jack

Tom Young wrote: »

Charter. Do what your gut tells you to do.

Sorry I will be more careful about wording in future

Just Jack

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I'd personly be worried that its taken over 1800 years to arrive.

This I do not understand

Procrastastudy

Look at the date you put up - 212 its now 2012 thats 1800 years. It wasnt funny when I posted it - its less funny now I've explained it :P

coylemj

OP, you've been made an offer by the insurance company so you have two choices - accept or reject. If you accept then it's standard practice that you sign to accept 'in full and final settlement', that allows the insurance company to close the file.

They won't pay unless you sign the document, no matter how much they eventually offer you. If you reject the current offer then you have to hope that they will offer more or failing that, you'll have to take the other party to court in a civil action but if you do and even if you win, if you are awarded less than they had on the table before you took them to court, you will have to pay all of their legal costs to defend the case in court (because you rejected an offer greater than what you won in court) so you could end up being in the red.

Just Jack

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Look at the date you put up - 212 its now 2012 thats 1800 years. It wasnt funny when I posted it - its less funny now I've explained it :P

Yes I see it now,with your eye for detail I think you will do well in law.

ResearchWill

coylemj wrote: »

OP, you've been made an offer by the insurance company so you have two choices - accept or reject. If you accept then it's standard practice that you sign to accept 'in full and final settlement', that allows the insurance company to close the file.

They won't pay unless you sign the document, no matter how much they eventually offer you. If you reject the current offer then you have to hope that they will offer more or failing that, you'll have to take the other party to court in a civil action but if you do and even if you win, if you are awarded less than they had on the table before you took them to court, you will have to pay all of their legal costs to defend the case in court (because you rejected an offer greater than what you won in court) so you could end up being in the red.

I thought for the cost issue to arise the Insurance company would have to put a tender into court and costs are only an issue from the date of tender.

coylemj

ResearchWill wrote: »

I thought for the cost issue to arise the Insurance company would have to put a tender into court and costs are only an issue from the date of tender.

Correct, as soon as the insurance company see that the plaintiff is going to court they would lodge the money being offered in court and then if the plaintiff is awarded the same or less he would be liable for the costs of the court case.

I did say 'you will have to pay all of their legal costs to defend the case in court' - I wasn't implying that all of the defendant's costs would be recoverable from the plaintiff.

drkpower

coylemj wrote: »

Correct, as soon as the insurance company see that the plaintiff is going to court they would lodge the money being offered in court and then if the plaintiff is awarded the same or less he would be liable for the costs of the court case.

I did say 'you will have to pay all of their legal costs to defend the case in court' - I wasn't implying that all of the defendant's costs would be recoverable from the plaintiff.

In your typical PI action, the Defendant can only tender (or lodge) at the time of the delivery of a Defence or within a period of four months from the date of the Notice of Trial.

So, the Defendant cant tender as soon as the plaintiff goes to court - even if the plaintiff didnt beat the tender, they would have to take the hit in terms of the plaintiffs costs up until the point of the Defence, at the earliest.

Just Jack

coylemj wrote: »

OP, you've been made an offer by the insurance company so you have two choices - accept or reject. If you accept then it's standard practice that you sign to accept 'in full and final settlement', that allows the insurance company to close the file.

They won't pay unless you sign the document, no matter how much they eventually offer you. If you reject the current offer then you have to hope that they will offer more or failing that, you'll have to take the other party to court in a civil action but if you do and even if you win, if you are awarded less than they had on the table before you took them to court, you will have to pay all of their legal costs to defend the case in court (because you rejected an offer greater than what you won in court) so you could end up being in the red.

Joe has no problem accepting the full and final settlement bit. His problem is with the Without admission of liability.

coylemj

Just Jack wrote: »

Joe has no problem accepting the full and final settlement bit. His problem is with the Without admission of liability.

That's probably just a tactical manoeuvre to fend off a potential claim from another party arising out of the same incident e.g. 'you settled with Joe so you admit your customer was liable, therefore you have to pay me as well'.

Sign and take the money.

ComfyKnickers

Just Jack wrote: »

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I'd personly be worried that its taken over 1800 years to arrive.

This I do not understand

Wouldn't blame you, it should be "personally" lol