gryffron wrote:didds wrote:get all that.
I was responding specially to the point made
"but because you might end up getting sued for millions if you'd caused serious injuries to someone else."
AIUI: Insurers are obliged to pay out to third party victims "regardless of the physical or mental condition of the driver" Road Traffic Act 1987. The insurer (not the victim) may then sue their client to reclaim the cash, in cases where there is clear blame. Especially drink and drug driving.
Gryff
For clarity - exactly. There was an earlier suggestion that indurance comanies would do this and this was an issue because
"but because you might end up getting sued for millions if you'd caused serious injuries to someone else."
ie the driver get sued.
My point is the typical person would never earn millions in their lifetime, let alone after a "reasonable ampount" to still provide basic needs first, and that thus pursuing Fred Bloggs for such levels of sums would be meaningless. As demonstrated by the example of £5M claimed form somebody earning 20K pa (forgetting for now the basic needs aspects) would take 250 years to pay off.
That's not to say insurance companies don't do this of course. I just don't see how it could possibly benefit them in any real sense.
didds