Page 2 of 2

Re: Reduction in Damages for Whiplash

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:58 pm
by atticus
The law operates on proof, not strong suspicion (however reasonably or unreasonably formed).

Re: Reduction in Damages for Whiplash

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:24 pm
by diy
Wasn't there a statistic, that more nikon cameras had be stolen than ever made? If that was true, then there are some fraudulent claims.. Proving which ones are fraud may be hard, doesn't change the fact that there must be some.

Re: Reduction in Damages for Whiplash

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:38 pm
by atticus
Was there?

Can a camera be stolen only once?

Re: Reduction in Damages for Whiplash

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:57 am
by diy
Is it theft when its not yours?

I had some bikes stolen a few weeks back. They are quite distinctive custom builds. easily recognised by me. I wonder if I saw them in the street, am I within my rights to walk up and take them even if the current possessor had in good faith purchased them from the thief. I think you could snatch a bike off someone before they realised what was going on.

Technically though, they belong to my insurance company now. Anyway I'm digressing from the PI thread...

I suspect many claims fall in to a category of highly suspicious. e.g. 5 occupants, other side alleges accident was deliberate etc..

Re: Reduction in Damages for Whiplash

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:34 am
by atticus
Suspicious claims should be contested. This was dls's point.

Re: Reduction in Damages for Whiplash

PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:41 pm
by diy
What about the value of candles ?

A decent lawyer might advise a client to pay a possibly dodgy claim for economic reasons.

Re: Reduction in Damages for Whiplash

PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:41 pm
by atticus
How many candles?

Re: Reduction in Damages for Whiplash

PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:47 pm
by atticus
Sure, I advise clients about the cost and potential benefit of certain courses of action; most of not all lawyers do. But you don't pay up based on a commercial decision and then claim it was fraud.

And I have sat down with a client that had regularly faced claims of questionable merit, and always settled because of the individual cost of fighting each case. The client had got a name for being a pushover. The decision was taken to fight the next one to the end. The next case was fought, successfully. That dried up the flow of cases.