Exclusion to Occupiers Liability Act

rx8

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Your employer is being unreasonable.

I would just hand this over to a solicitor.

I know, and anyone I've spoken to cannot believe it, but I know that even if I won a case against them, they would appeal it at the last minute to drag it out and avoid paying.

Claw Hammer

rx8 wrote: »

I know, and anyone I've spoken to cannot believe it, but I know that even if I won a case against them, they would appeal it at the last minute to drag it out and avoid paying.

That is their form.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

How is liability limited to 1.22m per claim?

Sorry Claw Hammer, bit of a brain fart there, I'm thinking of the limited liability requirements in relation to property damage resulting from the use of a vehicle under vehicle insurance/guarantor/exempted person requirements.

Pat Mustard

rx8 wrote: »

I know, and anyone I've spoken to cannot believe it, but I know that even if I won a case against them, they would appeal it at the last minute to drag it out and avoid paying.

They are denying liability already. It seems that they don't intend to pay you at all. So if they drag it out as long as possible and pay you eventually, that will still be a better than the current situation.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

Sorry Claw Hammer, bit of a brain fart there, I'm thinking of the limited liability requirements in relation to property damage resulting from the use of a vehicle under vehicle insurance/guarantor/exempted person requirements.

Where are you getting the 1.22m from?

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Where are you getting the 1.22m from?

The Road Traffic Act 1961 S56 (as amended) allows an insurer/guarantor/exempted person set a limit on liability for property damage of €1,220,000 per motoring claim (whatever the number of victims), which is €220,000 more than the minimum limit set by EU Directive 209/103/EC.

Mr. Incognito

Give it to a solicitor.

You can already see the wasted time here.

A quick solicitors letter followed by proceedings and the prospect of a costs order against them will change their tune

You trying to DIY it and letting them no exposure to costs will not.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

The Road Traffic Act 1961 S56 (as amended) allows an insurer/guarantor/exempted person set a limit on liability for property damage of €1,220,000 per motoring claim (whatever the number of victims), which is €220,000 more than the minimum limit set by EU Directive 209/103/EC.

That doesn't mean there is a cap on liabiity. It only means the indemnifier does not have to pay out more than that. If the claim is higher the claimant can recover from the tortfeasor.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That doesn't mean there is a cap on liabiity. It only means the indemnifier does not have to pay out more than that. If the claim is higher the claimant can recover from the tortfeasor.

I never said their was a cap on liability, I was talking about their external insurers liability:-

GM228 wrote: »

Anything over that amount is covered by an external insurance provider, but their insurance is fairly cheap (on the grand scale of things) I would imagine considering the insurer could never be liable for a motor related accident as liability is legally limited to €1.22M per claim.

The point I made was their external insurer would never be liable for a motor related claim (for property damage) as their liability is limited to €1.22M per claim and anything up to €27M is covered by CIE anyway.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

I never said their was a cap on liability, I was talking about their external insurers liability:-



The point I made was their external insurer would never be liable for a motor related claim (for property damage) as their liability is limited to €1.22M per claim and anything up to €27M is covered by CIE anyway.

The insurer would be liable if they didn't limit their liability. It is permissive, not mandatory.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The insurer would be liable if they didn't limit their liability. It is permissive, not mandatory.

True, but I believe most if not all insurers limit their liability.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

True, but I believe most if not all insurers limit their liability.

They will all limit liability but it may not be to than exact sum.

boege

My understanding is that any car accidents in car parks are equivalent to accidents on the public road, so the normal rules apply. The other car driver is required to provide details of their car insurance.

The property owner does not get involved, unless negligence on their part can be shown. The fact that they are the same here may be causing confusion on both sides.

Just treat as a you would a 'normal' road accident. You should report to the guards and your insurers. I would advise holding any solicitor involvement until you talk to your own insurers first, as they will control any claims.

4ensic15

boege wrote: »

My understanding is that any car accidents in car parks are equivalent to accidents on the public road, so the normal rules apply. The other car driver is required to provide details of their car insurance.

That depends on whether the car park is public or private. The o/p appears to have been in a private car park.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

That depends on whether the car park is public or private. The o/p appears to have been in a private car park.

The ECJ has confirmed in Case C-162/13 Damijan Vnuk vs Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d that compulsory motor insurance cover extends to private land, Irish legislation is yet to catch up, not sure how that will affect an exempted person though?