Question:
A taxi slammed into a car driven by my wife on May 13. She was six months pregnant and lost the child some time later. The taxi was overtaking a line of at least six stationary vehicles. She was on her way to drop our two kids off at school. She was given a 'bligh' to go ahead while exiting our premises. There were reputable witnesses. The cab driver, whose licence was suspended for a year, is insured with NEM. The claim has still not been settled. I do not intend to claim for medical bills. However, I will not back away from justice being served despite how small the claim may be. Please advise.
- M.G.C., Kingston.
Answer: Yours is yet another example why insurers need to get their act. together. And, it's not only in relation to sales, service and claims handling. It also involves technology. One reader asked last week why NEM had not replied to an e-mail he sent to them via their website for a quote for household insurance. Thinking I was helping the company, I copied the mail to one of its top managers. Guess what? Had I been holding my breath for a thank you I would have died last Wednesday!
Do not deal with this claim. Hire the services of an attorney instead. He (or she) should be a specialist in personal injury claims. Since the taxi was insured do not "play ease up." Make sure that as far as it is possible to do so with money, your family members are compensated for the physical and emotional injuries they suffered because of the taxi driver's carelessness. Playing by the Golden Rule does not mean picking up the tab for the other person's negligence. You owe absolutely nothing to the taxi driver. He probably contributed to the death of your unborn child and nearly killed your wife and two children.
NEM'S RESPONSE
Here is what NEM said when I contacted them after receiving your first e-mail on October 11: 1) "We received the Police Report on the 31st August 2005 and forwarded this to our Insured for a response. 2) Our Insured has now advised that he is appealing the Court's decision and has instructed an attorney to represent him. We are now trying to determine the exact nature of this appeal before taking any further action. This matter is being given urgent attention and we will be contacting the third party's broker as soon as possible." NEM is saying rather firmly: "None of your damn business! We will do as we please." This reaction is not dissimilar to how some government officials tried to finesse reporters from this newspaper who sought information under the Access to Information Act.
You will be doing a great disservice to your family if you were to continue to handle the claim without the services of an attorney. One by-product of that would be that you may end up putting money into the coffers of NEM and short-changing your family. A better course would be to use the delay the insurer obviously wants, to get proper legal advice. The next stage in the process could see a large increase in the size of the claim against the taxi driver. Justice will not be served in this case if you "turned the other cheek" and allowed the taxi driver and the company he is insured with to benefit from that horrible collision.
Cedric E. Stephens provides independent information and advice about the management of risks and insurance. If you need free information or counsel to help you solve a problem write to The Financial Editor or contact Mr. Stephens directly at aegis@cwjamaica.com.
