22-12-11, 09:59 PM
While I have every sympathy for the person subjected to such incompetence I would make one point. The policy may have had an exclusion in relation to the fitted luggage which may have voided a claim.
We do not as much as we like to think we do Insure the item per-se...an insurance contract is a financial one..we insure against the potential financial loss and for the insurer to put us back in a similar financial position in relation to the insured event and immediately prior to its occurence.
If no claim has been made then this person should not have accepted a settlement under the policy in fact if Hastings managed to turn it into a claim..well done them (for all the wrong reasons) What the insured were / are due (In my opinion) is a full reinstatement at the insurers expense and damages for their trespass upon his property and associated expenses. The lawyer doesn't sound too hot too me..
We do not as much as we like to think we do Insure the item per-se...an insurance contract is a financial one..we insure against the potential financial loss and for the insurer to put us back in a similar financial position in relation to the insured event and immediately prior to its occurence.
If no claim has been made then this person should not have accepted a settlement under the policy in fact if Hastings managed to turn it into a claim..well done them (for all the wrong reasons) What the insured were / are due (In my opinion) is a full reinstatement at the insurers expense and damages for their trespass upon his property and associated expenses. The lawyer doesn't sound too hot too me..
The Frying Scotsman