Many professionals (doctors, solicitors, dentists, architects, surveyors etc.) provide services to “consumers”.
Section 2 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 defines a consumer:
See HERE for a post on the possibility of difficulties with insurance companies. Readers might like to know of the provisions of Section 55 (3) (f) of the Consumer Protection Act 2007. It reads: “55.- (3) A trader shall not engage in any of the following commercial practices: … (d) in relation to a consumer’s claim on an insurance policy, doing either or both of the following: (i) requiring the consumer to produce documents irrelevant to the validity of the […]
In the world of commerce, possession alone is insufficient to transact business; title or ownership is indispensable.
This can cause difficulty for the insured person, but more often than not, it causes profound difficulties for the insurance company.
The courts have frequently rejected arguments that claims have been settled, as purportedly evidenced by “releases” signed by Plaintiffs.
There is a problem however with most mortgage loan approvals; they do not guarantee the actual provision of the money. They are subject to conditions and the offer of finance can be withdrawn before drawdown.
The fact that the auditors in that case escaped by the skin of their teeth shows life is going to get difficult for the profession.
Insurance has a strange aspect which we often overlook; we are happy that we did not need it.
Furthermore, if the defendant insurer is claiming that the claim falls into an exception specified in the contract of insurance, it is for the insurer defendant to prove that fact and not for the plaintiff insured to disprove it.
Of course, what Eoin O’Dell is too courteous to point out is that it is not an attractive human feature to try to avoid paying, or properly paying, for a service, but that is a vain complaint in the knowledge that some people contract, through the internet, with anonymous suppliers of drugs…