|
So do I James. Our point seems to be being completely ignored by all though.
|
|
Its not being ignored...point taken and being pursued - Thanks G
|
|
|
|
I also own a business. In the same situation I would be be trying to pursue a claim through the 3rd party liability insurance. Have you looked at this yet?
I will put this to my broker today and report back - thanks
|
Think about having your own loss adjuster. Discuss your chances of success with professionals dealing in insurance disputes and then you will know whether you want to pay their fees to take on your case.
It seems to me that at the end of all this the best solution may turn out to be where you, your employee, the hire company and your insurance company all share the costs.
However, I fear you will probably end up in the worst situation with lawyers and advisors making a bit of money and you paying for everything in the end. I say that because even if you sue your employee, unless he is very well off, he will leave and not pay you. He could declare himself bankrupt and you will get nothing from him.
|
|
|
|
I also own a business. In the same situation I would be be trying to pursue a claim through the 3rd party liability insurance. Have you looked at this yet?
Just spoken with my broker who assures me that this scenario is not the same as being hit by an unirsured driver.
He also made it clear that there was no route through the 3rd party liability part of our insurance.
|
|
I wonder what the position of the insurance company would be if a vehicle was to get stolen whilst the keys were in the ignition, when it was a necessary part of the vehicles operation - for example a delivery lorry with a hiab type crance mounted upon it. Ie you have to leave the engine running in order for the hydraulics to operate the crane, but it is physically impossible not to leave the cab unattended whilst doing this.
|
Look, you have incurred a loss for which you are not insured. Your insurance policy makes it quite clear that you are not insured for this loss. You would almost certainly not be insured if your employee had stolen the van either.
I don't see how this has reached 60 posts already...
You can buy insurance to cover you for negligence on the part of your employees; may I suggest it for the future.
|
I don't see how this has reached 60 posts already...
Didn't realise there was a limit to the discussion
Perhaps you can go elsewhere
|
I'm sure MM was just giving a blunt, off-the-cuff reaction.
There's a large number of posts because people enjoying picking over the bones of a subject like this - it's a just a little different from the usual post and probably most people (unless they have a legal background) don't see the issues in black and white.
I must admit to having followed the thread quite closely.
|
Didn't realise there was a limit to the discussion. Perhaps you can go elsewhere
When you post in an open forum, be prepared for all kinds of welcome and unwelcome replies. ;-)
I'm sure MM was just giving a blunt,
... reaction, true to form. ;-)
There's a large number of posts
Your reply makes it 63 posts. :-)
because people enjoying picking over the bones of a subject like this
If I am ever in the dock and facing a jury, I dread to think that the jurors would have thinking processes such as those of most members of most forums! ;-)
|
A view from another side.
If i was an `ex employee` coming under the possible threat of legal action, for a moments inattention, I would be looking at any way possible to strike back by the same means, an employment tribunal for example.
If that threat to me subsequently receded, I may just go for it anyway on a point of principle having been `forced` to get legal advice anyway.
I would not let my family suffer the effects of unemployment without taking down a small business by any legal means possible if I considered my situation to be unjust.
|
|
Leaving your keys in a vehicle while you walk off is not a moments inattention. I'm very surprised that anyone is defending this idiot!!!
|
well, what would you do if you were him? just lie down and take it ;)
My point is, people can do anything if trapped in a corner with no way out.
|
In that situation, yes, I would own up to my stupidity and take the hit. But I also freely admit it's easy for me to say that, I'm pretty sure I earn a lot more than he does, and I've never had my morals tested on such a large amount of my own cash; I've made it into 4 figures, but only once.
I happen to agree that there is no point pursuing a van driver for a £12k debt caused by his stupidity. The situation is a disaster all round, it's a lose lose situation, but certainly I would be wanting him to make a contribution.
It's a risk of having employees I guess.
Edited by Gordon M on 15/07/2008 at 15:14
|
I fail to understand one issue. If it was my car I left the keys in car (and it gets stolen) then insurer can refuse paying me as I was negligent.
OP insured the car against misfortune. The driver (whom OP had no direct control) made the mistake, which was not OP's fault. So, why his insurer will refuse?
It means tomorrow, if one of his drivers pushes another van over a cliff, then insurer will again refuse the claim citing same negligent clause?
Does that signify that all businesses which operates in this model, can suffer same damage if any of their vehicles is written of because of driver's negligence??
|
I fail to understand one issue.
Indeed you do
OP insured the car against misfortune.
Indeed he did not. OP insured the vehicle against a whole list of possible eventualities as listed on his insurance policy schedule. One such excluded risk was the risk of his employee being daft. He could have insured against employing daft employees; he didn't. And there, m'lord, I rest my case.
In terms of answering OP's query, this is the summary. Clearly there is plenty of righteous indignation for a further 75 or so posts... His only recourse as I posted a link in the first response on this thread is that the Insurance Company is wrong, on the particular facts of this case, to refuse to pay out.
|
He isn't necessarily an idiot. It could easily have been a calculated risk that went wrong. But that doesn't mean that he hasn't screwed up and cost his boss money. And it isn't reasonable under the circumstances either to resent being fired or to become vengeful when attempts are made to recover the money.
Events of this sort tend to reveal people in their true colours. The money isn't really the only important element here, but it's up to those directly concerned to reach an accommodation (or not) on the whole situation, which is difficult to put it mildly. One has to sympathise with both parties really.
|
What if the driver is on his uppers though, struggling to keep his mortgage paid and a roof over his families head?
|
Maybe he should be more careful with other people's property then!!
Seriously, what on earth happened to the concept of personal responsibility?????
EDIT: I'm not completely without sympathy, the above mentioned factors are why I wouldn't be in favour of chasing him into bankruptcy to get the money, but still!
Edited by Gordon M on 15/07/2008 at 15:30
|
The point is, he is still personally responsible for the situation oilrag. Getting vindictive by resorting to industrial tribunals (unless of course contractual rights have been violated) won't help much probably and will make life harder for all concerned. Better to concentrate on finding another job, or staying on and helping the firm recoup. Of course, which one would depend on nicky cruz's attitude.
Anyone can make a mistake, and most reasonable employers know that.
|
A very similar story in the (awful) paper
tinyurl.com/5rzbe7
|
|
I saw that one- I am amazed that they come to a value of £19k on an H reg Golf!!
|
It was in better comics than that Jonathan!
Of course one has to feel sorry for Jason thing too, but in his case one can't help feeling that what he did really was idiotic: a young car freak like him leaving the keys in such a toerag-attracting motor, his own pride and joy. He will have to put it down to experience. A bit mean of plod, but that's the system...
|
|
I would not let my family suffer the effects of unemployment without taking down a small business by any legal means possible if I considered my situation to be unjust.
A bit more background...
The employee (now ex) was, whilst working for me, doing plenty of cash in hand work -approx 15-20 hrs /week work for at least 7 months prior to the theft for a neighbour of mine. It got to the point to that I considered it potentially at odds with the work that he was doing for me but I was not prepared to shop them - so I let it ride.
When he became my ex-employee he started work, full time with the neighbouring firm and didn't lose a days pay.
I would be surprised if he considered his situation unjust!
|
"The point is, he is still personally responsible for the situation oilrag"
That would need proving in court Lud surely?
|
|
I thought he had admitted leaving the keys in the van for a couple of minutes. Why would it have to be proved in court?
|
|
True Lud, he gave a police statement, a statement to me and to the insurance investigator whereby he admitted leaving the keys in the unattended vehicle. This is not in dispute.
|
|
if he's now gainfully employed again, then a hint at court action (and the subsequent potential of an Attachement to Earnings Order) etc, might well have him agree to pay you a weekly/monthly amount out of his new salary...no harm asking formally in a letter after some decent research
|
Lud, the thief is responsible for the situation not the driver.
I really do dislike (speaking generally now) the principle that the `common working man` is expected to pay personally for errors (not wilful destruction) he makes in the servitude of his employers.
|
I really do dislike (speaking generally now) the principle that the `common working man` is expected to pay personally for errors (not wilful destruction) he makes in the servitude of his employers.
Totally agree. If he'd stuffed it into a tree, or dropped an expensive parcel, or made 100 other silly errors then he should be in no way held to account. I even pay parking tickets if any of our staff happen to pick one up on our business.
He didn't make a silly error. He effectively left £12k of his employers cash lying around unattended, and he deserves everything he gets.
Edited by Gordon M on 15/07/2008 at 18:07
|
"My problem is bringing the ex-employee to the table and extracting x thousands of pounds that he will predictably do all he can to avoid."
Best of luck this time. He is very much to blame but will you ever see a worthwhile return persuing him for the money. But you need to sort out contracts in case of the future. It must be possible. As a company car driver my employer would hold me responsible for damage (and possible replacement) for say a diesel engine damaged by using petrol. And if we have too many accidents in a year there's a charge too. And my company employs tens of thousands in the UK alone.
"There may be some mileage in an appeal - what does fully comprehensive mean if there are exclusions?"
They can exclude things like this otherwise think of the consequences and the false claims.
There were some comments about neighbours leaving keys in cars. Ours had a car stolen a few Christmases ago and did get a pay out. There was no clause in their insurance but the new one certainly did - they were just in and out loading up whilst the car warmed. They were lucky.
|
I forgot to add my main point... doh.
You need to figure out where you stand with the insurer and hire company and resolve that ASAP. If you did need to pay £12k then sort it. There is no point also paying £330pm on top of this while it's all argued. Remember they might only owe a smaller amount but with the finance settled they are still without the van that was bringing in money.
This is not dissimilar to what happened many years ago with our company and a colleague. He crashed a hire car (fair enough) and assumed it would all be sorted and was eventually given another. What took a while for people to realise was nobody knew where the crashed/written off one was taken. So as well as owing the amount for the right off but the company were still paying for the hire!
For the original poster.... instead of self-insuring the hire vans might it not make more financial sense to use the insurance of the hire company and only pay the excess where needed? You're facing a single claim of £12k. For our company we always self insure (own fleet and hire cars) for own risk and have only third party insurance because we also have one of the largest fleets of cars/vans in the UK (or at least used to).
|
Lud the thief is responsible for the situation not the driver.
Of course he is. But no one is going to get any money out of him probably. And the driver was of course guilty of contributory negligence. As I said, this is a difficult situation. I agree with you too that an honest worker who makes a booboo shouldn't be tortured to make good financially. From the op's posts it looks as if the firm in question was in the throes of change in some way - a lot of firms often are - and the insurance arrangements weren't as watertight as they looked. A lesson for all concerned no doubt.
The driver it appears has fallen on his feet. The sad thing about cases of this sort is that they must often destroy what are perfectly good working relationships, often unnecessarily.
|
would people still feel the same way to the driver if the scenario was thus:
you lend your car to a friend, put him on your insurance and whilst he has the car in his care, he leaves the keys in the ignition when he bought a paper in the morning, car gets stolen.
surely a friend or employee has some duty of care to your property.
If either one of them blew the car up, then the friend may or may not offer to contribute to the repair (i think they should), whereas the employee wouldn't....but leaving the thing for an easy steal is fairly negligent and shows sod all respect for the owner
|
shows sod all respect for the owner
Sums up the attitude of majority of employees where "company property" is concerned.
|
To quote the original post,
"10 yards from the van. As his back was turned, someone stole the vehicle"
Who, hand on heart can say they never left their keys in the ignition, 10 yards from the vehicle, inadvertently or otherwise?
|
This could be a long list, Oilrag, but I believe I can. (And invariably make my frustration known if anybody else gets out of the driver's seat of my car leaving the keys in - even when changing drivers.)
|
tinyurl.com/3xwyrk
;)
Actually, while taking a lad back to a unit following a court appearance a Social Work colleague got out of the car to say something to a staff member right outside their front door.
The lad slipped into the drivers seat and was away.
Last seen leaping into the air (the car that is) over the quite severe road humps in their private road, engine screaming in first.
Think he had 5 years to go on the LA car loan too as it was a new car.
(i`ve given up on this now by the way, i`m going back to thinking about 10w30 oil and sludge.
;)
Edited by oilrag on 15/07/2008 at 20:13
|
|
Might be a function of where you live and what you are used to. Urban dwellers have long been aware of the dangers of not securing their cars. As recently as ten years ago I lived in a rural community where cars were often left overnight with keys in the ignition and houses left unlocked while the occupants were out or slept.
|
Let's keep this in proportion - the guy has lost a van, not murdered someone.
He deserves the sack, but that's it.
No doubt all the people on here who are having a go at him would be quite happy to indemnify all their ex-employers for any losses occurred while they were working there.
Leaving the keys in a van is not a criminal act or criminally negligent, it's just plain stupid.
Like it or not, the employee has his own 'limited liability' in the same way the company director has.
He has taken responsibility for his own actions, or it's been taken for him - he's lost his job.
Now, if he had nicked £12K from the firm, I would pursue the thieving swine to the ends of the earth.
|
|
Add me to that list as well. Even when loading the car I lock it every time I head indoors. Every time. It's a right pain.
|
|
One thing that may be worth looking into is ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). HMCS seems to be really pushing this these days for non-family civil disputes. www.dca.gov.uk/civil/adr/index.htm#4
|
Thanks H
Very interesting and worth knowing about should the situation develop to that point.
It has to be in everybody's interest to keep the solicitors at bay, get round a table and act reasonably (unless the driver refuses to negotiate and choses to take no responsibility).
This is my first backroom experience and I am v.grateful to all who have given this time and viewpoints.
I have just sent off the appeal to the insurance company and I will post an update as and when the information is suitably relevant.
I will also enquire into the extra level of cover needed to protect my business from future mishaps, because I am sure that other scenario's involving driver behaviour could invalidate my current insurance.
|
It has to be in everybody's interest to keep the solicitors at bay, get round a table and act reasonably (unless the driver refuses to negotiate and choses to take no responsibility).
do you really think that a normal working man who drives a van for a living is going to have 12k to just give you back.
looking at it from his point of view there is no point in him sitting down and finding a resolution as there is no way at all he could get hold of 12k without putting his quality of life at serious risk.
i really do empathise with you but if i was the ex employee i would have nothing to gain by speaking to you at all.
the ball's in your court so the only way you are going to get the money back is by taking him to court but id be very surprised if when you win you get more than £30 a month u
|
>>get rounda table and act reasonably
I believe in this case 'reasonable' means - the £12k being split between myself, the driver, the hire company, and hopefully the insurance company.
|
If the thief had got caught and subsequently tried at court, he might had to pay damage of worth £12k. Since the thief is no where to be found, we are now talking of squeezing £12k from the driver!
True, the drive made a stupid mistake but to err is human and he should not be made the sole scapegoat. Absorbing the cost of van is easiest for insurance company.
The OP didn't do his duty [van was not insured properly for employee's negligence]
The police didn't do their duty [could not catch the thief]
The hire company didn't do their task [why can't they claim the loss from their own insurance?]
The driver didn't do his part either [left the key on on van]
Ideally, everyone should contribute to recover the cost. The thief can then claim the money as benefits.
|
If the thief had got caught and subsequently tried at court, he might had to pay damage of worth £12k.
Eh? Can you find any examples of where a criminal has been ordered to pay such damages? Forget as large a sum as £12k - Find me an example of even as little as £100 loss being paid back in damages £ for £?
|
I've read this thread with great interest and I have come to my conclusion on the situation.
It strikes me that the driver is being used as the easy target in order to try to recoup some of the losses of this incident. Instead of chasing the real culprit - the thief for the losses he has caused the company, it is a lot simpler to try to pin the blame on the next man in the chain - the driver.
Yes the driver was a little negligent in leaving the keys in the ignition whilst his back was turned but that doesn't make him liable for the total of the £12k loss that occurred in my opinion.
I can understand the insurance companies position regarding the fact that the van was stolen whilst the keys were in it, but is it reasonable to expect the driver to have known that there was this clause in the contract, indeed did the OP even know about this clause and if the OP did, why did he not insure against this clause or make his staff aware of this and put procedures in place to deal with this kind of incident?
The initial loss snowballed from the drivers actions, but he can't be held responsible for any of the events/circumstances there after, as far as I can see. And as he was only an employee I can't see how he can be held responsible for the total cost of the loss, as he is merely an agent acting on behalf on his employer. If the poor guy was self-employed then it would be his problem, but he wasn't, he was merely just a worker.
Sometimes in business I think you just have to absorb the loss whether you feel agrieved about it or not, chasing the employee is just trying to pass the buck and make someone else take responsibility. I do think that if you insist on persuing the driver for the loss you will be on a hiding to nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
