Prev: Triton recalled
Next: Bonds DB5 Aston Martin for sale
From: PhilD on 3 Jun 2010 04:32

"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message
news:5lne065d4fnqnpbbktikg8q367i10veu9m(a)4ax.com...
> Brad wrote:
>>John_H wrote:
>>> Brad wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I spent quite a few years investigating claims on behalf of several
>>>> NSW councils.
>>>>
>>>> I ended up with the feeling that the majority of people that injured
>>>> themselves in public places tried to sue the local council. Judging
>>>> from the sheer number of claims, and tenuous reasons they came up
>>>> with to point the blame there.
>>>
>>> The main reason people sue is because councils, and others, are
>>> insured against legal liability. Furthermore there's no avenue for
>>> redress by any other means... if they don't sue they'll get SFA no
>>> matter how culpable the council, or others, might be. Insurance
>>> companies don't mind because they can adjust their premiums to cover
>>> the payouts as well as the legal costs and still show a profit.
>>
>>The councils I worked for were all self insured. So everything was a cost.
>>(cheaper than insurance still though)
>
> Can they still do that?... I would've thought public liability
> insurance would be mandatory by now. Certainly councils insist that
> anyone they do business with has it (to the tune of $20M last time I
> had dealings with one).
>
As far back as I can remember our Council has had insurance. The only time
I've seen self insurance was with fleet vehicles for the national company I
used to work for. I think they also did it that way for their buildings etc.

I remember a council discussion where the dangers of a lagoon on the edge of
town was an issue. Someone said that it should have warning signs, then
someone wanted them in multiple languages but how many do you do it in. Then
it was what happens if someone didn't read the signs. At that point it
deteriorated in to having advance warning signs, presumably in multiple
languages, to tell pople to read the next sign. I don't think it went
anywhere as there's little signage there but they have probably discussed
similar again as there were recent croc sightings.


>>> Same goes for third party insurance (which is actually legal liability
>>> insurance).
>>>
>>> We're no less a litigious society than the US is, and for similar
>>> reasons. What's the alternative?....
>>
>>Oh no I agree. Aussies are very prone to sue if the can too.
>>
>>The alternative? I guess brainwashing us with more feelings of personal
>>responsibility.
>
> I'd suggest that very few people are going to accept responsibility
> for a costly injury when they can claim against a "fund" they see as
> being set up for the purpose. If they can afford to sue they will
> (and there's no shortage of lawyers who operate on a "no win no fee"
> basis for those who can't).
>
> If everyone took responsibility for their own actions there wouldn't
> be any need for CTP (compulsory third party) but even the law accepts
> that large numbers won't voluntarily insure themselves.
>
> Of course the law doesn't want to take any responsibility either,
> which is why is we've got CTP. :)
>
> --
> John H


From: D Walford on 3 Jun 2010 05:14
On 3/06/2010 6:03 PM, John_H wrote:
> Brad wrote:
>> John_H wrote:
>>> Brad wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I spent quite a few years investigating claims on behalf of several
>>>> NSW councils.
>>>>
>>>> I ended up with the feeling that the majority of people that injured
>>>> themselves in public places tried to sue the local council. Judging
>>>> from the sheer number of claims, and tenuous reasons they came up
>>>> with to point the blame there.
>>>
>>> The main reason people sue is because councils, and others, are
>>> insured against legal liability. Furthermore there's no avenue for
>>> redress by any other means... if they don't sue they'll get SFA no
>>> matter how culpable the council, or others, might be. Insurance
>>> companies don't mind because they can adjust their premiums to cover
>>> the payouts as well as the legal costs and still show a profit.
>>
>> The councils I worked for were all self insured. So everything was a cost.
>> (cheaper than insurance still though)
>
> Can they still do that?... I would've thought public liability
> insurance would be mandatory by now. Certainly councils insist that
> anyone they do business with has it (to the tune of $20M last time I
> had dealings with one).

You made me go and check my policy, we have $10M public liability insurance.
What was interesting was the policy specifically excludes coverage for
cleaning supermarkets and "shopping centre forecourts" and we were about
to do a tender to clean a supermarket.
I suspect the reason for that will be the tendency for people to sue
supermarkets for anything and everything, I'll be phoning the insurance
co tomorrow to find out what the increase in premium would be if we won
the supermarket tender.


Daryl
From: John_H on 3 Jun 2010 06:34
Athol wrote:
>John_H <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> Can they still do that?... I would've thought public liability
>> insurance would be mandatory by now. Certainly councils insist that
>> anyone they do business with has it (to the tune of $20M last time I
>> had dealings with one).
>
>Last I heard, specifying that someone had to have indemnity insurance
>to be allowed to be a subcontractor or supplier automatically makes
>the entity specifying that as a requirement jointly liable in the
>event of a claim...

That's exactly how it works whether one or both are insured. The old
saying "you can't get blood out of stone still applies though...
claimants won't usually bother to sue the uninsured party although the
other's insurance company still might (especially if they think
there's a chance of striking blood).

Meaning that no business can really afford to be without it.

--
John H
From: Brad on 3 Jun 2010 08:03
John_H wrote:
> Brad wrote:
>> John_H wrote:
>>> Brad wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I spent quite a few years investigating claims on behalf of several
>>>> NSW councils.
>>>>
>>>> I ended up with the feeling that the majority of people that
>>>> injured themselves in public places tried to sue the local
>>>> council. Judging from the sheer number of claims, and tenuous
>>>> reasons they came up with to point the blame there.
>>>
>>> The main reason people sue is because councils, and others, are
>>> insured against legal liability. Furthermore there's no avenue for
>>> redress by any other means... if they don't sue they'll get SFA no
>>> matter how culpable the council, or others, might be. Insurance
>>> companies don't mind because they can adjust their premiums to cover
>>> the payouts as well as the legal costs and still show a profit.
>>
>> The councils I worked for were all self insured. So everything was a
>> cost. (cheaper than insurance still though)
>
> Can they still do that?... I would've thought public liability
> insurance would be mandatory by now. Certainly councils insist that
> anyone they do business with has it (to the tune of $20M last time I
> had dealings with one).

I've been out of the field for a while, but fairly certain they still do it
that way. I think any large company or institution can do it, if they setup
their own claim management department. The main reason many do it is after
getting sick of disinterested insurance companies mishandling and upsetting
their staff.

They still have to be underwritten, usually by a regular WC insurer who
charges them the net value of the previous years claims plus a small premium
fee.

>
>>> Same goes for third party insurance (which is actually legal
>>> liability insurance).
>>>
>>> We're no less a litigious society than the US is, and for similar
>>> reasons. What's the alternative?....
>>
>> Oh no I agree. Aussies are very prone to sue if the can too.
>>
>> The alternative? I guess brainwashing us with more feelings of
>> personal responsibility.
>
> I'd suggest that very few people are going to accept responsibility
> for a costly injury when they can claim against a "fund" they see as
> being set up for the purpose. If they can afford to sue they will
> (and there's no shortage of lawyers who operate on a "no win no fee"
> basis for those who can't).
>
> If everyone took responsibility for their own actions there wouldn't
> be any need for CTP (compulsory third party) but even the law accepts
> that large numbers won't voluntarily insure themselves.
>
> Of course the law doesn't want to take any responsibility either,
> which is why is we've got CTP. :)

The road is a whole other thing really, because we have that specialist
system in place. It's when people get hurt on their own time in public
places, not involving a motor vehicle, that the fun really starts. :)

Product liability claims are the most interesting though. Speciailist
lawyers working backwards to find a design fault in something that may have
contributed to an accident can come up with some funny stuff.

--
Brad


From: Bernd Felsche on 3 Jun 2010 10:02
Athol <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote:
>John_H <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote:

>> Can they still do that?... I would've thought public liability
>> insurance would be mandatory by now. Certainly councils insist
>> that anyone they do business with has it (to the tune of $20M
>> last time I had dealings with one).

>Last I heard, specifying that someone had to have indemnity
>insurance to be allowed to be a subcontractor or supplier
>automatically makes the entity specifying that as a requirement
>jointly liable in the event of a claim...

My insurer asked if I wanted professional indemnity insurance.

I said that I would be more likely to be sued for damages if I had
such cover and would therefore not accept the additional risk.

I can, after all, do $100,000,000 "damage" in a matter of seconds.
(That's almost as fast as Kevin Rudd.) And nobody would be able to
pay the hourly rate that I'd have to charge in order to pay
insurance to be covered for that sort of thing.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | If builders built buildings the way programmers
X against HTML mail | wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that
/ \ and postings | came along would destroy civilization.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Triton recalled
Next: Bonds DB5 Aston Martin for sale