Euan McGilp
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 210
This may affect very few members direcly as these companies don't really like modded stuff - but please think about it when you come to renew the daily driver (if it's not the LC).
Just had the following email content sent to me by a very good friend because I asked him to verify what he had just told me on the phone...
Just because they (Churchill / Direct Line) want to try to force some judge into granting a fault appeal to apportion partial blame to a child who was walking on the verge on a country lane AND NOT WEARING HI VIZ CLOTHING they are trying to get the precedent set so they can reduce payouts in the future for other claims! This poor kid has been left brain injured & will need care for the rest of her life
"Why you should not use Churchill or Direct line insurance
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-16-wasnt-wearing-high-visibility-jacket.html
This sort of thing needs to be stamped out asap before it creates a precedent.
I.E.:
I might be walking / cycling alone when Joe Rep, texting on his mobile, pulls out and T-bones me. The court finds him guilty, but the insurance cuts any pay out 'because the victim should have been wearing high-visibilty clothing'.
Scary or what?
Churchill is owned by Direct Line, which is why they should be boycotted as well."
THE ONLY WAY THEY WILL CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICE IS IF IT HURTS THEIR PROFITS
Being the
militant my mate is, he has just
altered Chuchill's page on Wikipedia because he knows it will p*ss them off.
I
f they take it down he will only put
it back because he has not added anything that is not verifiable.
Ok, rant over.
Just had the following email content sent to me by a very good friend because I asked him to verify what he had just told me on the phone...
Just because they (Churchill / Direct Line) want to try to force some judge into granting a fault appeal to apportion partial blame to a child who was walking on the verge on a country lane AND NOT WEARING HI VIZ CLOTHING they are trying to get the precedent set so they can reduce payouts in the future for other claims! This poor kid has been left brain injured & will need care for the rest of her life
"Why you should not use Churchill or Direct line insurance
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-16-wasnt-wearing-high-visibility-jacket.html
This sort of thing needs to be stamped out asap before it creates a precedent.
I.E.:
I might be walking / cycling alone when Joe Rep, texting on his mobile, pulls out and T-bones me. The court finds him guilty, but the insurance cuts any pay out 'because the victim should have been wearing high-visibilty clothing'.
Scary or what?
Churchill is owned by Direct Line, which is why they should be boycotted as well."
THE ONLY WAY THEY WILL CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICE IS IF IT HURTS THEIR PROFITS
Being the
militant my mate is, he has just
altered Chuchill's page on Wikipedia because he knows it will p*ss them off.
I
f they take it down he will only put
it back because he has not added anything that is not verifiable.
Ok, rant over.
... And there was me thinking insurance was compulsory
