| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 79519 | 2007-05-22 12:52:00 | compulsory 3rd party insurance | motorbyclist (188) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 552169 | 2007-05-24 05:56:00 | The first law is: the lawyers always get paid. As for insurance companies: try being the innocent (non-insured) victim, and see how the guilty party's insurance company treats you. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 552170 | 2007-05-24 06:39:00 | The actual amount of pay-out his insurance could pay was about 1/50th of the medical bills, not to mention that the rule of thumb here is: Medical bills x the factor of 20 = remuneration to injured party for pain and suffering and future lifestyle infringement . So . . to muster enough payment and place it in a trust for me to draw for the rest of my life, there had to be more than the insurance policy covered as a deposit . Even the amount that was collected was small compared to the pay-out they actually were sued for and lost . We went for $40 million and got about just a little over 1 million . The court declared me bankrupt and I was relieved of the medical bills and got all the money minus 15% for the atty . That was very fair . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 552171 | 2007-05-24 07:18:00 | We went for $40 million and got about just a little over 1 million . The court declared me bankrupt and I was relieved of the medical bills and got all the money minus 15% for the atty . That was very fair . A lot of people here would think that was very, very unfair . |
george12 (7) | ||
| 552172 | 2007-05-24 07:23:00 | We went for $40 million and got about just a little over 1 million . Yep . We know all about Yanks suing each other for millions . |
pctek (84) | ||
| 552173 | 2007-05-24 07:44:00 | The lawyer got only 15%? He'd probably consider that unfair. After a recent case in NZ, the "winner" said that she regretted trying for "justice". She was awarded something like $250 000. Her lawyer couldn't understand her indignation: he'd discounted her fees, so the lawyer and his "expenses" took only about $193 000. | Graham L (2) | ||
| 552174 | 2007-05-24 08:12:00 | Exactly. And would you expect your parents to still take responsibility for your actions and activities after moving out? Would you consider it right for them to be blamed for you breaking the law and getting yourself into trouble, if you did? of course not! i have never considered them responsible for my actions, and would hate to see them somehow punished for my screw-ups. oh and SJ, over here if you get hurt it isn't automatically someone elses fault. ie even if you did it to yourself ACC pays out, even to the extent of 80% or your normal weekly earnings untill you return to work and ridiculous sums "compensation". usually it's the employer who suffers the most, as they have to pay the first week off regardless of how you hurt yourself, and they pay the heaviest levies. point being, it is basically state funded unlimited health insurance, funded of course by the taxpayer so it isn't really "free" as some people consider it, but it does give us and many tourism/adventure businesses the freedom to do things without huge swathes of disclaimers/insurance premiums/excesses/lawyers. |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 552175 | 2007-05-24 08:27:00 | usually it's the employer who suffers the most, as they have to pay the first week off regardless of how you hurt yourself, Only if it was a work related injury. |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 552176 | 2007-05-24 08:30:00 | Only if it was a work related injury. no not true, they changed that a few years ago from what i hear. |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 552177 | 2007-05-24 09:03:00 | I can't see the problem, They killed one of their own . We have one less of em, and no innocents were harmed . This time!! |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 552178 | 2007-05-24 09:44:00 | no not true, they changed that a few years ago from what i hear. Don't think so. From Labour Dept. www.ers.dol.govt.nz The following rules apply in relation to sick leave and the ACC scheme: * When the employee is taking leave for the first week of a non - work accident, sick leave may be used as there is no ACC entitlement in these circumstances. * If an employee has a work related accident the employer has to pay “first week compensation” and can't require the employee to take that time off as sick leave. |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||