judge putting the boot into a third party

Carawaystick

Read a judgement of a case of a woman seeking a HC review of an insurance ombudsman decision.
The judge really put the boot into the insurance company for their weaseling out of paying out insurance before pointedly stating they were not a party to this case.

Is this poor form by the judge? or fair game?

johnnyskeleton

The insurance company was a notice party so could have participated in proceedigs if they wanted to.

conorh91

The term 'fair game' is itself unfair, because it implies an attack that is superfluous, even if strictly-speaking permissible. I disagree. The judgment is quite restrained.

The Court identified as an error of law the Ombudsman's non-investiagtion into the utmost good faith shown by the insurance company. If the Court had not identified a prima facie "avaricious" business practice worthy of investigation, how could this error of law have itself been identified?

Moreover, a discussion of the claimant's duty of disclosure simply had to include the context in which disclosure of the shooting was not disclosed to the insurance company. If the Court is to say that the Ombudsman should have investigated the reasonableness of non-disclosure, the Court surely must show that such non-disclosure is capable of being reasonable?

I envy how anyone can make insurance and administrative litigation so interesting, even readable.

On an (unrelated?) note, the same judge is a great advertisement for widening the candidate pool for judicial appointment in the superior courts.

MarkAnthony

conorh91 wrote: »

On an (unrelated?) note, the same judge is a great advertisement for widening the candidate pool for judicial appointment in the superior courts.

Indeed!

A exceptionally well written judgement in my humble opinion.

Carawaystick

Its a very good read alright.
The bit about the insurer not paying out for emergency repairs and after the lady paid for emergency repairs, the insurer said actually you were covered, but we won't refund you; seems to show bad faith on the insurers part, along with their first attempt to say the lady wasn't living there... not utmost good faith alright


I was a bit confused about the "over the counter" insurance, the judge said it was vague in the precedent case and didn't really define it too clearly here?

MarkAnthony

Carawaystick wrote: »

Its a very good read alright.
The bit about the insurer not paying out for emergency repairs and after the lady paid for emergency repairs, the insurer said actually you were covered, but we won't refund you; seems to show bad faith on the insurers part, along with their first attempt to say the lady wasn't living there... not utmost good faith alright

That's not really the point of utmost good faith. It's more to do with the contract formation which it's clear FBD felt was voidable in this case.

Carawaystick wrote: »

I was a bit confused about the "over the counter" insurance, the judge said it was vague in the precedent case and didn't really define it too clearly here?

Judges will always try and leave a matter open to give it the broadest possible interpretation. It's also not the place (IMHO) for a High Court Judge to clarify the judgement of a colleague or member of the Supreme Court. However one can fairly assume they are talking about the 'no hassle' type of insurance that places expediency over detail such as last minute travel insurance sold at an airport or car rental insurance.

cml387

Very interesting.
I wonder was FBD attempting, in a ham fisted way, to imply that the house was subject to a "gun attack" and therefore the fact that it subsequently seems to have been subject to an arson attack should be seen in that context.

Nermal

A search for Deirdre Earls, Limerick brings up the google 'links removed' notice.

More to this than meets the eye...

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.