Two rope system and Insurance

[Mick Dempsey]

10 minutes ago, Stubby said:

So Mick , you have never killed yourself ?

Ha ha! Had a couple of unintentional near misses!

[john87]

On 19/02/2023 at 15:37, Mick Dempsey said:

Gordon S makes a very good point.

 

Every accident/fatality has at its base an error of judgement. 
Short of actually intentionally killing yourself they will pay out, that’s what your insuring yourself against.

 

This is based on practically zero knowledge of the subject of course.

I think that is entirely correct. Think of it like this. There is NO law that says you have to have two ropes. It might be considered "best practice" but that is meaningless..

 

Say you had an accident in your car. The insurers could not argue that best practice was not to drive the thing, as this [driving the things] has been proven to be dangerous and that therefore "best practice" was to go on a bus so they are not paying out..

 

john..

[daltontrees]

9 minutes ago, john87 said:

I think that is entirely correct. Think of it like this. There is NO law that says you have to have two ropes. It might be considered "best practice" but that is meaningless..

 

Say you had an accident in your car. The insurers could not argue that best practice was not to drive the thing, as this [driving the things] has been proven to be dangerous and that therefore "best practice" was to go on a bus so they are not paying out..

 

john..

That's a fallacious argument. Say you had an accident and you hadn't obeyed the Highway Code (which is not law). Your insurer could quite rightly decline to pay out because you could have and should have done something better and safer but didn't, and the accident was the result of that choice or omission.

[Mick Dempsey]

14 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

That's a fallacious argument. Say you had an accident and you hadn't obeyed the Highway Code (which is not law). Your insurer could quite rightly decline to pay out because you could have and should have done something better and safer but didn't, and the accident was the result of that choice or omission.

Surely every accident is a result of someone not obeying the Highway Code?

[monkeybusiness]

Insurance is a strange world. A close family member crashed whilst drunk and wrote their car off (fortunately nobody else involved). They were arrested by the police and subsequently banned from driving. The insurance company paid out for their car (with full knowledge of all of the circumstances)!

[richyrich]

8 minutes ago, monkeybusiness said:

Insurance is a strange world. A close family member crashed whilst drunk and wrote their car off (fortunately nobody else involved). They were arrested by the police and subsequently banned from driving. The insurance company paid out for their car (with full knowledge of all of the circumstances)!

They maybe all vary, but many would not pay out if driver was over legal limit. 

Another example is small print of travel insurance, most won't pay medical bills if the person was intoxicated or even had a few drinks..

If they are tw@ts they will avoid paying out , and probably small print makes it legal.

[john87]

3 hours ago, daltontrees said:

That's a fallacious argument. Say you had an accident and you hadn't obeyed the Highway Code (which is not law). Your insurer could quite rightly decline to pay out because you could have and should have done something better and safer but didn't, and the accident was the result of that choice or omission.

I dont think it is quite the same..

 

As you say the highway code is not law, however, it can [and is] relied upon to "create" offences.

 

There is absolutely no law that says you have to drive on the left.

 

If however, if you choose to drive on the wrong side, contrary to the provisions of the highway code, then the code can and will be relied on to create the offence of dangerous, reckless, careless, without due care etc

 

Not sure that the insurer could decline to pay out though..

 

Not sure about up trees though!! I suppose they would judge what you did against what they suppose a reasonably prudent man would have done in the circumstances??

 

john..

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Much speculation, understandably, possible "contributory negligence" could be leveled at the injured party for not following published industry guidance which could affect any pay-out..."could!" (not would.)

 

To the OP - I think it's a question for your insurer to hopefully give you peace of mind.

 

ATB and 'stay safe'

Paul