Buncrana pier victims family being sued

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

Actually it's yourself that does not understand how insurance works. The driver has insurance - this does not equate to an indemnification for all all and every loss suffered. Insurance policies have limitations, exclusions, excesses, conditions etc. I've explained already what a third party insurance policy covers.

I am saying your do not know what you are talking about, you do not know what will or will not be covered by insurance.
We are now rehashing the same arguments.
Firstly the indemnification is for the driver and the cause of the accident. Third party is to cover anyone who has been injured as a result of the drivers actions. You then have the conditions of the pier and whether the DCC have a responsibility for the safety of the public in a public space who again will also be covered by insurance.

You have not explained anything, you have listed quantitative recognized amounts for particular injuries. Not all injuries are listed, only the more common. But this does not mean if is not listed then there is no case. Her solicitor will argue she has a case.

Someone who works for an insurance company on this thread has already commented: (page 17.)

"I work in insurance and have see people paid out for Psychological trauma from accidents. I can't give names/details - you'll just have to take my word."

Here as some examples of people being awarded compensation for PTSD

https://www.injuriesboardadvice.com/news/tag/ptsd-compensation/

Here is another already listed on the thread

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-sues-driver-for-trauma-after-witnessing-her-husband-severely-injured-in-car-accident-35878746.html

kaymin wrote: »

Can you address the point raised - this article clearly confirms the estate is being sued by Stephanie Knox - something you can't seem to acknowledge!

Again rehashing:

Read post listed below:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106559124&postcount=489

kaymin wrote: »

Ah yes, solicitors, 50% of whom are always wrong.

Really? You have been watching too much TV....
There is a settlement almost always Solicitors win most of the time

kaymin wrote: »

Please provide some precedents to back up your claim - i.e. legal cases where witnesses have successfully sued an insurance company as a result of PTSD suffered from witnessing an accident.

Also, point out where in the Book of Quantum the PIAB envisages paying out for such claims

I have listed these in the above links.
Maybe you came to this argument late, but I am now listing things that have already been posted. Go back and read the thread, you will probably be able to answer most of the questions you post.

kaymin wrote: »

Again you're wrong. The insurance company will pay if it is covered by the insurance policy. Despite you're consistent arguments to the contrary, the estate is being sued and therefore the estate can be found liable.

The estate, the father and the child will not come to any financial loss.
The mother of the children is also suing, so by your own reckoning the mother is suing the estate of her own child.
She is not, she is claim against the DCC and or the car insurance exactly in the same manner as Knox.

kaymin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am saying your do not know what you are talking about, you do not know what will or will not be covered by insurance.
We are now rehashing the same arguments.

You do not know what will be covered by insurance. If you take Hullaballoo's post as correct it is unlikely Stephanie Knox will win her case against the estate / council:

'PTSD/Nervous Shock is about the one and only psychiatric/psychological injury that is recognised by the courts as giving rise to any kind of compensation. As a psychological injury, it's treated with disdain by the courts ....and it's quite difficult to obtain damages. It's narrow enough that people who witness extremely violent deaths cannot recover damages if they cannot show a connection of love and intimacy with the deceased.'

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Firstly the indemnification is for the driver and the cause of the accident. Third party is to cover anyone who has been injured as a result of the drivers actions. You then have the conditions of the pier and whether the DCC have a responsibility for the safety of the public in a public space who again will also be covered by insurance.

The point you seem unable to grasp is that the insurance company could deny coverage or, in the event they are obliged to cover such third party claims, counter-sue against the estate given the insured's negligence / drink driving (depends on the policy terms).

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Here as some examples of people being awarded compensation for PTSD

https://www.injuriesboardadvice.com/news/tag/ptsd-compensation/

Here is another already listed on the thread

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-sues-driver-for-trauma-after-witnessing-her-husband-severely-injured-in-car-accident-35878746.html

The first case I can understand since the claimant was trapped as a result of negligence on the part of the defendant to maintain the lift. The second case the claimant succeeds because of her 'connection of love and intimacy with the deceased'. I don't see Stephanie Knox's case as comparable.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Really? You have been watching too much TV....
There is a settlement almost always Solicitors win most of the time

There's two sides to every legal case with lawyers on both sides - one wins, the other loses.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The estate, the father and the child will not come to any financial loss.
The mother of the children is also suing, so by your own reckoning the mother is suing the estate of her own child.
She is not, she is claim against the DCC and or the car insurance exactly in the same manner as Knox.

I haven't commented on the mother's case. The fact of the matter is Knox is suing the estate and the council. The insurance companies may be obliged to settle third party claims, however, they may in turn pursue the insured (and their estate) for such losses depending on the terms of the insurance policy (e.g. if the policy has drink driving exclusion clauses etc).

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

You do not know what will be covered by insurance. If you take Hullaballoo's post as correct it is unlikely Stephanie Knox will win her case against the estate / council:

'PTSD/Nervous Shock is about the one and only psychiatric/psychological injury that is recognised by the courts as giving rise to any kind of compensation. As a psychological injury, it's treated with disdain by the courts ....and it's quite difficult to obtain damages. It's narrow enough that people who witness extremely violent deaths cannot recover damages if they cannot show a connection of love and intimacy with the deceased.'

Again her solicitor thinks otherwise else they would not peruse the case.
But that being said, her case could be dismissed if the insurance company challenge it.

kaymin wrote: »

The point you seem unable to grasp is that the insurance company could deny coverage or, in the event they are obliged to cover such third party claims, counter-sue against the estate given the insured's negligence / drink driving (depends on the policy terms).

At no point have I failed to grasp the scenario here. You are trying to use a pseudo understanding of the law to draw your own conclusions. You seem to think if the insurance company denied coverage which legally that cannot do that there is a scenario whereby Ms Knock could be suing the estate directly. That is not what is happening. Either Ms Knock has a case in which the DCC and the deceased insurance policy will be ordered to pay compensation or she does not have a case in which she will get nothing.

And that only happens if it actually goes to court... What will probably happen is the DCC and the insurance company will weight up the likely hood of Ms Knocks being awarded damages, how much it will cost to contest it and draw up a settlement package.

kaymin wrote: »

The first case I can understand since the claimant was trapped as a result of negligence on the part of the defendant to maintain the lift. The second case the claimant succeeds because of her 'connection of love and intimacy with the deceased'. I don't see Stephanie Knox's case as comparable.

If you think you are qualified to argue the merit of the cases details here then I fear you are wasted in whatever it is you do.

If her Solicitor thought there is no way she had a claim, then they would not peruse it. Insurance solicitors usually work on a no win no fee basis. Not all but most.

kaymin wrote: »

There's two sides to every legal case with lawyers on both sides - one wins, the other loses.

Not true, most cases do not even go to court there is settlements drawn up whereby both parties agree to something.

kaymin wrote: »

I haven't commented on the mother's case. The fact of the matter is Knox is suing the estate and the council. The insurance companies may be obliged to settle third party claims, however, they may in turn pursue the insured (and their estate) for such losses depending on the terms of the insurance policy (e.g. if the policy has drink driving exclusion clauses etc).

Every insurance claim works like this, you seem to think there is this third scenario whereby the insurance company could renege on indemnifying the driver.... They cannot. This is the part you do not seem to understand!

kaymin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again her solicitor thinks otherwise else they would not peruse the case.
But that being said, her case could be dismissed if the insurance company challenge it.

At no point have I failed to grasp the scenario here. You are trying to use a pseudo understanding of the law to draw your own conclusions. You seem to think if the insurance company denied coverage which legally that cannot do that there is a scenario whereby Ms Knock could be suing the estate directly. That is not what is happening. Either Ms Knock has a case in which the DCC and the deceased insurance policy will be ordered to pay compensation or she does not have a case in which she will get nothing.

The insurance company can deny / fight the claim against the estate if they choose - there is nothing that legally prevents them from doing this. If they lose and have to pay the claim they could also choose to counter-sue the estate.

You have consistently made two arguments that have been false:
1) that the estate is not being sued
2) that the estate is not exposed to any loss from Knox's legal action

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Every insurance claim works like this, you seem to think there is this third scenario whereby the insurance company could renege on indemnifying the driver.... They cannot. This is the part you do not seem to understand!

I've been countering the views you have expressed that the estate is not being sued by Knox and that the estate is not exposed to any loss. You seem to finally realise this is wrong with your comment above (I live in hope)

con___manx1

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Why? Fake moral outrage?

I am outraged you want her to get hit but a bus therefore I hope you get hit but a bus.... See where this takes us?

Its not fake i would never imagine doing such a thing as her. That family has been through hell.
Very appropriate user name by the way

weldoninhio

con___manx1 wrote: »

Its not fake i would never imagine doing such a thing as her. That family has been through hell.
Very appropriate user name by the way

Do you also hope the mother of the deceased children gets hit by a bus? Considering she also has a claim in.

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

The insurance company can deny / fight the claim against the estate if they choose - there is nothing that legally prevents them from doing this.

Wrong - They will assess and respond to the claim stating they have no case and will not pay compensation. Legally they are obliged.

kaymin wrote: »

If they lose and have to pay the claim they could also choose to counter-sue the estate.

Wrong again.

kaymin wrote: »

You have consistently made two arguments that have been false:
1) that the estate is not being sued
2) that the estate is not exposed to any loss from Knox's legal action

Again this has been covered.
The term "estate" is used here because the policy holder is deceased however the insurance policy he held still stands.
The estate is not being sued it was insured, the estate is not exposed to any financial loss.

kaymin wrote: »

I've been countering the views you have expressed that the estate is not being sued by Knox and that the estate is not exposed to any loss. You seem to finally realise this is wrong with your comment above (I live in hope)

I understand how this works, I understand how any insurance claim works.
This is an insurance claim, it will be processed like any other insurance claim, the estate and or family is not exposed.

ShowMeTheCash

con___manx1 wrote: »

Its not fake i would never imagine doing such a thing as her. That family has been through hell.
Very appropriate user name by the way

So you want her to get hit by a bus?

Pot kettle black with the username con-man!

con___manx1

weldoninhio wrote: »

Do you also hope the mother of the deceased children gets hit by a bus? Considering she also has a claim in.

I wasnt aware she had a claim in and no i feel deeply sorry for that woman. Cant imagine the hell she went through.
Has the guy who saved the baby got a claim in to ?

con___manx1

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So you want her to get hit by a bus?

Pot kettle black with the username con-man!

That was my bebo name. On boards to long

weldoninhio

con___manx1 wrote: »

I wasnt aware she had a claim in and no i feel deeply sorry for that woman. Cant imagine the hell she went through.
Has the guy who saved the baby got a claim in to ?

But she is taking money from her child? How is she any different to the lady claiming?

The guy who saved the baby isn’t pertinent to this discussion.

The Bishop Basher

weldoninhio wrote: »

But she is taking money from her child? How is she any different to the lady claiming?

She isn't.

I feel incredible sympathy for this lady. I don't think any of us could comprehend what she's going through, it must be horrific beyond belief but I still have no idea why she thinks she's entitled to money

Her husband killed her family.. It sucks but it's not our fault or the Co Co's fault.

weldoninhio wrote: »

The guy who saved the baby isn’t pertinent to this discussion.

The guy who actually saved the baby isn't claiming and doesn't agree with claiming in this case. He has my utmost respect.

weldoninhio

Swanner wrote: »

She isn't.

I feel incredible sympathy for this lady. I don't think any of us could comprehend what she's going through, it must be horrific beyond belief but I still have no idea why she thinks she's entitled to money

Her husband killed her family.. It sucks but it's not our fault or the Co Co's fault.



The guy who actually saved the baby isn't claiming and doesn't agree with claiming in this case. He has my utmost respect.

1. The guy who saved the baby may not have had any mental or physical health problems related to the incident.

2. “Doesn’t agree with claiming in this case” is waffle and was put to bed by the man himself. An article came out saying he was against claiming and it was wrong for his ex-gf to be claiming, the very next day he released a statement saying that he had not spoken to any newspaper or reporter, that the story was untrue and that he hoped his ex-gf got the help she needed.

But don’t let facts get in the way of your witch hunt.

dr.fuzzenstein

Dragging this up again, I wonder has Ms Knox quietly dropped this one?
There has been zilch news anywhere.
Does anyone know anything more?

jochenstacker

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Dragging this up again, I wonder has Ms Knox quietly dropped this one?
There has been zilch news anywhere.
Does anyone know anything more?

I'd say we won't hear any more of this.
Unlike some people on this thread, she might have some decency in her or at least knew that, even if she won this utter abomination of a case, she'd have to move to South America because she would have lost the respect of any right-thinking, decent person and even most utter scumbags.
I don't give a fcuk what some trolls and arseholes say just to have a different opinion and be, like, all edgy and stuff, this case was a slap in the face of a bereaved family, it lacked any humanity and compassion, it was simply the single most cnutish thing I have ever heard about.

OldMrBrennan83

jochenstacker wrote: »

I'd say we won't hear any more of this.
Unlike some people on this thread, she might have some decency in her or at least knew that, even if she won this utter abomination of a case, she'd have to move to South America because she would have lost the respect of any right-thinking, decent person and even most utter scumbags.
I don't give a fcuk what some trolls and arseholes say just to have a different opinion and be, like, all edgy and stuff, this case was a slap in the face of a bereaved family, it lacked any humanity and compassion, it was simply the single most cnutish thing I have ever heard about.

That's all that's behind anyone with the neck to defend it.