Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:26:38
would suggest that Andrew is being too hard on the English way of
life. Only third party insurance is compulsory, and some drivers
(although, I would think, a decreasing number) limit themselves
to this, perhaps adding fire and theft for good measure. Comprehensive
insurance is now more common than, say, 20 years ago, but the cost
of this has risen in real terms and the discount brokers/companies
(i.e. those that sell online or over the phone) are less likely
to provide free car insurance.
if a driver has confidence in his own driving skills and is prepared
to take the risk that he will incur irrecoverable losses following
an accident which is not someone else's fault, why should he buy
insurance from a company that offers this perk at additional cost?
He is, of course, free to choose and just because he ignores the
more expensive option, he should not be dismissed as a skinflint.
If he incurs expenditure as a result of another driver's negligence,
that driver should pay for it through increased future premiums.
From: Andrew Tettenborn
Sent: 05 December 2003 09:02
Subject: Fwd: Re: FWD: ODG: Liesbosch
answer to Jason's question is simple but cynical: the English
are cheapskates. You can get policies that give you a free hire
car, but many drivers are too mean to buy them.
message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged
or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended
recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this
message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the
intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment
or disclose the contents to any other person.
further information about Clifford Chance please see our website
or refer to any Clifford Chance office.
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next