On 22/07/2013 10:02, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:05:22 +0100, GB wrote:

On 21/07/2013 23:29, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

snip

Few are
covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied
with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant
paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility.


Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists
are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his
fridge freezer insurance" comments).

What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court
judgment is quite significant and interesting.

Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say
is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite
interesting.


Which bit is interesting?


Sorry - I forgot that some are not bright. Here it is again - just for you:

What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court
judgment is quite significant and interesting.

Could that perhaps be the bit I found interesting?


Why is that interesting? Before this revelation, what did you expect?
Person says they are hurt, and insurance company immediately admits
liability, maybe?

Now go back and read the bit of my post you snipped. "The bit about
insurance companies not being easy when it comes to claims is hardly
news, is it? They'll require the claimant to make his case out. They may
settle before court, but they won't be an easy touch. They never have
been. "