how do i claim off a publican with no public liability

irishchick74

I had a fall in a bar about 8yrs ago and tried to claim off the publican, but he had no insurance on the premises, to make along story short, i brought him to court but he never appeared to the courts, so it ended up in the high court and i was awarded a sum of money from the judge, but now the publican is saying he is broke and cannot pay up, is there any insurance body around that i could go to and claim off them?

Paulw

Can your claim now not be recovered through the sheriff?

irishchick74

sheriff was sent out, but came back nulla bona, my own solicitor is saying we go for bankrupcy now but its gonna cost me even more to do that, i was told that there is a thing like car claims that i could maybe claim from them, im not sure who they are

Corkbah

you could apply for judgement orders against him for attachment/committal, basically if he fails to pay he goes to jail for breach of high court orders against him.

Pro Hoc Vice

Corkbah wrote: »

you could apply for judgement orders against him for attachment/committal, basically if he fails to pay he goes to jail for breach of high court orders against him.

He can only be jailed for refusal to pay not inability to pay.

bigneacy

infosys wrote: »

He can only be jailed for refusal to pay not inability to pay.

I think what corkbah was getting at would be that in that circumstance, he would have to prove his inability to pay, rather than his unwillingness.

If he does prove an inability to pay in court it would be dead against his business interests and therefore not a decision he'd be likely to take lightly.

If he's genuinely broke, then I dunno where you could go after that OP. I'm sure your not looking to kick a man who's already down- if he's genuinely unable to pay anything then, personally, I'd drop the case.

Pro Hoc Vice

bigneacy wrote: »

I think what corkbah was getting at would be that in that circumstance, he would have to prove his inability to pay, rather than his unwillingness.

If he does prove an inability to pay in court it would be dead against his business interests and therefore not a decision he'd be likely to take lightly.

If he's genuinely broke, then I dunno where you could go after that OP. I'm sure your not looking to kick a man who's already down- if he's genuinely unable to pay anything then, personally, I'd drop the case.

An inability to pay regular bills would be a serious issue. An inability to pay what I assume is a large court award is a totally different matter. Cases like this are a prime example of why even for a good claim there are dangers if suing a person with out adequate means or insurance. Unless the OP is sure of assets then further action can be nothing more than throwing good money after bad. The fact that the person was running a pub without insurance leads me to believe it is not a profitable business.

Zambia

I think the horse is dead, stop kicking. Hope your not to badly affected by your injuries.

Corkbah

bigneacy wrote: »

I think what corkbah was getting at would be that in that circumstance, he would have to prove his inability to pay, rather than his unwillingness.

If he does prove an inability to pay in court it would be dead against his business interests and therefore not a decision he'd be likely to take lightly.

If he's genuinely broke, then I dunno where you could go after that OP. I'm sure your not looking to kick a man who's already down- if he's genuinely unable to pay anything then, personally, I'd drop the case.

this is essentially the crux of the issue ...many people who owe money are using legal loopholes of transferring assets to relatives or selling for way below actual value or transferring ownership to ltd liability companies....to avoid having financial objects taken away from them to dissolve debts, in this case the guy has had 8yrs of notice and may have assets...but may also have suffered during the financial crisis and has nothing.

if he is still operating a pub or similar job (or any employment), I would question if he can make some sort of repayments (even if its €20/€50 a week for the next 20years..or longer)

its a chicken/egg situation ...if you investigate his financial records for the last 8yrs he may have previously owned assets and transferred them ..or may not have anything of worth ..but it will cost you to check...legal costs are mounting.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Lantus

so you don't need PL insurance then as even if someone suffered as long as you don't have enough money to give them your in the clear?

Makes perfect sense? Isn't it a legal requirement to hold PL insurance?

Couldn't the claimant get appointed rent receiver?

gozunda

infosys wrote: »

An inability to pay regular bills would be a serious issue. An inability to pay what I assume is a large court award is a totally different matter. Cases like this are a prime example of why even for a good claim there are dangers if suing a person with out adequate means or insurance. Unless the OP is sure of assets then further action can be nothing more than throwing good money after bad. The fact that the person was running a pub without insurance leads me to believe it is not a profitable business.

In the case of the defendant having gone out of business but having had insurance during that time - is the insurance company still liable to pay up?

Pro Hoc Vice

gozunda wrote: »

In the case of the defendant having gone out of business but having had insurance during that time - is the insurance company still liable to pay up?

Yes as long as valid insurance was in place at the time of the event, and there is no issue with notification.

camphor

infosys wrote: »

Yes as long as valid insurance was in place at the time of the event, and there is no issue with notification.

The only case that happens in is with Road Traffic. That is because there is a specific provision in the Road traffic Act. With regard to other cases the contract of insurance is between the defendant and his insurer. If the insurer declines an indemnity there is nothing the plaintiff can do. It would be up to the insured to go to arbitration to force the insurer to indemnify.

gozunda

camphor wrote: »

The only case that happens in is with Road Traffic. That is because there is a specific provision in the Road traffic Act. With regard to other cases the contract of insurance is between the defendant and his insurer. If the insurer declines an indemnity there is nothing the plaintiff can do. It would be up to the insured to go to arbitration to force the insurer to indemnify.

Hmmm that is an interesting point - so if company x goes bust whilst in litigation with an insurance claim against them, could the insurers decline an indemnity at that point?

camphor

gozunda wrote: »

Hmmm that is an interesting point - so if company x goes bust whilst in litigation with an insurance claim against them, could the insurers decline an indemnity at that point?

In my experience they always decline an indemnity. Why pay up if you don't have to?

Pro Hoc Vice

camphor wrote: »

The only case that happens in is with Road Traffic. That is because there is a specific provision in the Road traffic Act. With regard to other cases the contract of insurance is between the defendant and his insurer. If the insurer declines an indemnity there is nothing the plaintiff can do. It would be up to the insured to go to arbitration to force the insurer to indemnify.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0041/sec0062.html#sec62

http://www.qbeeurope.com/documents/ireland/expertise/QBE-Irish%20Broker%20Article-May%202011.pdf

Trend 2: Insurance and Insolvency
Frequently, the comment is made that there is no legislation in Ireland similar to the UK Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. The purpose of that Act is to allow a plaintiff obtain priority over the proceeds of an insurance policy in the event that an insured defendant becomes insolvent. In those circumstances, the insured’s right of action against the insurer is transferred to the plaintiff.
In Ireland, while there is no equivalent Statute, Section 62 of the Civil Liabilities Act 1961 was designed to protect an injured plaintiff whose defendant had died, gone bankrupt or gone into liquidation so as to ensure that monies payable on a policy of insurance to the defendant “will not be eaten up by other creditors but will go to satisfy his compensation”. Two important issues arise, namely:
1. While a full debate is required, it seems an unavoidable consequence of this section that a plaintiff has an inevitable right to bring an action against the defendants insurers
2. That unless otherwise advised, the plaintiff has the benefit of presumption that a defendant’s insurance policy was good.
This can be a very tricky call to make, particularly in those cases where there is either a large aggregate deductible or a high individual excess, and the insured is slow to pay. A premature advice to a plaintiff may irreparably damage an otherwise viable company. However, on occasion, the call needs to be made to avoid being placed in an invidious position.

gozunda

camphor wrote: »

In my experience they always decline an indemnity. Why pay up if you don't have to?

So would this include when insurers have taken on the case and their legal team are in train? Surely that would be unlikely...

camphor

gozunda wrote: »

So would this include when insurers have taken on the case and their legal team are in train? Surely that would be unlikely...

They always process claims on a without prejudice basis.

irishchick74

the business had no insurance at time of trading, i was already awarded in the high court and won my legal fees, loss of earnings etc etc, but no show from this person or correspondence from any of his solicitors, it just seems to be a win lose situation, just thought there was something like the road traffic thing around to help me out

camphor

irishchick74 wrote: »

the business had no insurance at time of trading, i was already awarded in the high court and won my legal fees, loss of earnings etc etc, but no show from this person or correspondence from any of his solicitors, it just seems to be a win lose situation, just thought there was something like the road traffic thing around to help me out

Even with the Road Traffic you have to get them involved at an eraly stage. You can get an examination order in the District Court and see if there is any money available.