Insurer tries to cut damages pay out to teenage pedestrian due to her lack of hi vis clothing on country road

by extension of this, there would surely be contributory negligence on the part of any driver in a car without a four star NCAP pedestrian protection rating.

It's interesting how many comments there are on the Daily Mail page.

If I was a shareholder attending their AGM I'd ask: 'Does the precedent this case might set, or the financial savings it might generate justify the reputational risk you are taking in the eyes of a generally hostile public?'

'Cycling i once almost hit a jogger on a winding country lane, who was dressed in black and running with headphones. That person was taking no responsibility for their own safety.'

Sounds as though you need to be more aware of what's going on around you when you ride...

As a cyclist i wear bright clothing, and i have noticed that cyclists are starting to wear day running lights.

Road users who choose to be hard to see are increasing the risk that they will be involved in an accident. Camouflage works after all.

Cycling i once almost hit a jogger on a winding country lane, who was dressed in black and running with headphones. That person was taking no responsibility for their own safety.

The actions you take, whether it is going to fast, or being camouflaged, reduce the chances of other road users preserving the safety margin you are reducing.

Not to be pedantic but.. everybody is refering to this as an accident it was not it was an incident.

even if it were an "accident" there is a very old saying that goes... Accidents do not happen, they are caused. (laziness inattentiveness pure bloody mindedness not looking where you're going and stupidity)

This is outrageous and the outcome will surely set a precedent that, if it goes the wrong way, will affect us all (badly).

This highlights perfectly how broken/conflicted the insurance system is.

I'd never use Churchill again having read about this, however I am sure that all insurers would act the same. Stick 'em all in the same snake pit along with the bankers.

I really feel for this girl and her family - stuff of nightmares.

Some more details on the Daily Mail this is money site here:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article-2274372/Churchill-insurance-ap...

Their article says that she was walking on the grass verge and part of the insurers argument was as a horse rider she should have known to wear hi-viz clothing on a dark road! So as cyclists I assume if we get run over as a pedestrian the same argument will be used against us. Over a thousand comments already the most popular being anyone against Churchill the least anyone trying to pass blame onto victim. Hopefully Churchill will have lost its case and payed compensation before they go bankrupt.

It's quite common to see horse riders in hi vis - with hi vis ankle bands on their horses. It's a sad state of affairs that hi vis is taking over from common sense driving. I still assume on narrow roads that I'll meet a tractor/horse/car or walker around every bend. Unfortunately we are being asked to cater for those that assume there is nothing around every bend and will not drive carefully.

They should look at this just as it is....an accident.

It is not always easy to see pedestrians (or cyclists for that matter) if it is dark, the road is not lit and they are wearing dark clothes.

While the article states that the driver was going too fast for the type of road in the dark, it may be that the road was the national speed limit, as many country roads are.

When kids in schools are taught about the highway code it is always recommended to them that they wear bright clothing if walking in unlit areas in the dark, and also when cycling in the dark.

I don't think it was the girl's fault that the driver hit her, and she may have been wearing bright clothes, but if she wasn't it may have helped the driver to see her sooner if she was.

The driver did the right thing and stopped to look for her, and got help. He was also insured to cover him for things such as accidents. In a case where the girl has been seriously injured the insurance company should just pay out.

Do they have a meeting coming up anytime soon?

If so I suggest an en masse visit by pedestrians and cyclists to spend our time bumping in to the directors and saying "Sorry, you didnt have Hi-vis on, I didnt see you there", or bumping into their cars and saying "Sorry, I didnt see your car there as it wasn't painted a violent shade of fucking yellow".

Direct Line is a publicly listed company. You can buy shares in it and that entitles you to go to the Annual General Meeting and ask awkward questions of the Board.

Just a thought....

Quote:

...road, described as “narrow and bending” and which had no pavement, pedestrians instead having to use the grass verge

Sorry, no. Where a separate footway is not provided, pedestrians have to take their chances on the road. Though it is advisable for them to be ready to leap onto the grass verge at very short notice should an inconsiderate/inattentive driver come around the corner and fail to notice them.

Drivers should be aware of the likelihood of pedestrians on roads such as this and adjust their driving accordingly. Disgusting behaviour from the insurer in this case, but others have said, only par for the course.

I think it's fair to say that many people in rural areas will drive relatively short journeys (even to and from the pub) because they feel it is not safe to walk on the roads, due to the "roads are for cars" attitude that is so prevalent.

I might be missing something here, but does anyone have any links to any social media they may use? I've found a couple of accounts the appear to be dormant on Twitter.

Churchill are owned by Direct Line Group. Direct Line Group are owned by RBS. RBS are 82% owned by the UK Government.

So it's (pretty much) YOUR insurance firm, earning YOU revenue (£4.5Bn last year, BTW) that are doing this.

Angry? Write to your MP. Close your RBS account. Cancel your Direct Line policy.

Someone really should set up a website a la the NoTW takedown, to give a focus for all the crossness out there at this move by a company owned mostly by us.

Typical of this insurance company.Churchill whose motto should be "Oh no" not "oh yes".
I was hit by a driver back in December as she drove out of a side street and hit me broadsides she admitted liability and the police were witness to the accident. Still this company refused to pay for the replacement of the snapped carbon bike and offered me £350 instead of £2225 for the bike and other bits . I refused and stated that I would have to go via a solicitor," If that's what you want to do " was their attitude ,so I did and a year and two months later still waiting for the now personal injury claim .They did have to pay up for the bike though .and also by the time the case is over they will have paid £10,000 in legal fees . the only way to deal with these companies is to boycott them and cancel any policies with them .another example is Friends life see the story behind this bunch of crooks. www.change.org/nicsfight

I think everybody knows, that the first thing insurance companies do when a claim is submtted, is how do we avoid paying out. If you have ever made a claim, for anything you will know all the questions you have to go through, if you speak to them on the phone, it is recorded, then they will ask you the same questions again to see if there is any variation in your answers, at that point you have lost your claim

The law requires a person to be at least 18 and to have passed a test to show that they know the HW code and can competently drive a vehicle. The victim in this instance is 13 and has passed no test but Churchill is arguing she shares liability for having the misfortune of being in the same public space driver decided to use for speeding?

Any judge or jury that buy's that is warped.

Scumbag insurers. How do folk like that sleep at night?

I ride a motorbike as well as a bicycle, let me tell you this is VERY common, almost every biker I know who has had an accident the insurance company has tried to reduce their claim with contributory negligence, be it Hi-Viz, Speed, Not having a white helmet (I kid you not).

I was hit buy a parked car that decided to pull out, they tried it on with me for not having Hi-Viz clothing on, I was lucky as I was in fact wearing a Hi-Viz and after the driver of the car confirmed this they paid out in full, they are the lowest of the low, that Hi-Viz jacket really saved me from being knocked off !

All those supposedly progressive alternative comedians from the 80s and 90s who have since done commercials for Churchill (and other insurers) must be really proud of themselves when they hear of stories like this.

This is just disgusting....strict liability as someone mentioned above, really needs to be used in this country, it's the only way that makes sense. How can we make this "blame the victim" culture come to an end?