Bonefish Blues
Banging donk
- Location
- 52 Festive Road
Some do, aiui, but it's not the norm, and it usually relates directly to matters pertaining to the house, as opposed to being a blanket policy.
On what basis?
As you didn't know that house insurance covered personal liability (otherwise you would not have asked "on what basis") then your second post (some do) is based on minimal knowledge.Some do, aiui, but it's not the norm, and it usually relates directly to matters pertaining to the house, as opposed to being a blanket policy.
'On what basis' is opening a discussion, but thank you for your feedback regarding the assumption it caused you to make.As you didn't know that house insurance covered personal liability (otherwise you would not have asked "on what basis") then your second post (some do) is based on minimal knowledge.
It is the norm.
No, but he said he felt a bit ruff though.Was the dog injured ?
As aforementioned, im with LV and they do provide such cover as standard. In their advertising they even use the example of injuring someone by accidentally poking then with my umbrella (not that I own one, so I should be safe). It's public liability cover, and most defimitely covers me and my personal actiions when away from home.'On what basis' is opening a discussion, but thank you for your feedback regarding the assumption it caused you to make.
Perhaps you could clarify, I am covered by which of my policies? I don't have 'house insurance', I have separate buildings and contents insurance. On which one of those is it the norm that I am covered?
My Insurance Brokers don't seem to understand that I should be covered, were I, for instance, to be walking my dogs across a park and was sued because of my negligence in not controlling them. They seem to think that I would only be covered for matters pertaining to consequential damage caused relating to my house - say the postman was injured by a falling tile (which was the precise example they used, and which rather echoes what I said in my post).
They also seem to think that's the norm, however if I wanted to purchase cover such that I had protection in those circumstances, they would be happy to discuss it with me.
In summary, I checked online prior to posting, and have just spoken to my Brokers to check my understanding prior to responding to you.
To repeat my question, on what basis do you assert that she will be covered in those circumstances?
As per Mr dragoTo repeat my question, on what basis do you assert that she will be covered in those circumstances?
Even Drago says it's not a standard feature. Certainly not enough for you to assert she will be covered...As per Mr drago
Leave my toilet habits out of it
I guess we can nickel-and-dime to and fro, but the Trade reckons it's unusual, hence my post. It's certainly sufficiently unusual that someone who asserts "If she has house insurance she will be covered under that" should be challenged.
Indeed. But Notafettler's NotforturningIf you changed "will be covered" to "may well be covered" [as an add-on, free or otherwise, to house insurance] then it wouldn't be far off the mark. Not to say it's universal, but nor is it unusual. This would be over and above occupier's liability, which I think is nearly always included
As you had no knowledge on the subject your views are near enough worthless.Indeed. But Notafettler's Notforturning
I'll leave it there thanks.As you had no knowledge on the subject your views are near enough worthless.
X XI'll leave it there thanks.
Others will take a view based on our posts content and tone. I wish you a pleasant day.