Spa Valley Bridge Strike

Do we know though whodunit or was it a 'hit and run' the local media havnt given any details beyond that it happened

 

if so, why are they looking for donations?

 

I think we need more information. I suggest that if the identity of the vehicle was known the insurers would be over them like a rash as the 'interruption of business' costs are racking up at a fair rate I imagine

 

Even if the vehicle has been identified, insurance companies can be very slow in paying out and the railway needs repairs doing a.s.a.p.

 

May I suggest that as there is a request for donations that the Spa Valley should be providing more details, ie we do/don't know the identity of the vehicle and what exactly the funds are needed for?

Eg The vehicle that has hit the bridge has not been identified, because of this we may not be able to fully recover our costs and it may take some time. In the meanwhile funds are urgently needed to cover lost income and ensure that the railway can continue to pay its bills

 

this exactly.... otherwise it comes across as a kneejerk reaction.

 

Insurers invariably suggest a "deny everything" stance, so I'd not read too much into this aspect. As it's rather unlikely that the bridge made any sudden moves, it'll all come out in the wash.

 

My understanding is that were 'personal injury' claims are involved that (sometimes?) insurers will pull their fingers out and ensure that accident victims get treated so they are back to work asap thus avoiding even larger liability.

There is also the legal doctrine Res Ipsa Loquitur - The principle of res ipsa loquitur when translated means 'the thing or the happening speaks for itself.' So if you drive a 14 foot high lorry under a 13 foot high bridge you don't have to faff about proving liability, its clear cut

 

As somebody who worked in insurance for 5 years until recently, I'm not sure that's quite a fair description. If the fault of the incident is clear (nothing much clearer than a truck driving into a bridge - assuming the appropriate warnings were in place and visible), then the insurers will want to mitigate their losses. Dragging their heels won't help anything and will cost them more in the long run. They'll be savvy enough to not want to allow losses to rack up. In my experience the majority of insurers are very reasonable, the problem is that everybody wants their claim to be top priority, and everybody thinks they're not at fault!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As someone back in it after a three-year break, neither am I.

I recall reading a comment from the GM of another line that they were filling in an insurance claim form after a bridge strike. I'm not sure whether that was to their own insurer, the errant driver's or the Motor Insurance Bureau (it's not my line of business, fortunately). I'd sort of assumed the Spa Valley would have some insurance but whether that covers the consequential loss is another matter altogether.

Patrick

 

I would have thought that most lines would have 'interruption of business' cover of some sort.

But, at the moment despite the existence of an appeal some important information is missing

 

The Septics have come up with a solution to these incidents. May I suggest that they should be installed on both sides of all rail bridges in the UK...

 

How about if you hit the sign, a demolition ball is released swinging down at the driver?

 

I can see the local yobbos standing around that contraption with sledgehammers, just waiting for their chance!

 

According to the website.............' The damage done by the lorry to the bridge is such that we cannot now operate any trains over it until it is repaired by our Contract Bridge Engineers, an inspection by them and our Consultant Civil Engineer is taking place on Monday at 08:00.'

It is now 15.56 on Monday and there has not been an update which is rather suprising..............

 

OK, so a preserved line has its operations severely curtailed by an act which it in no way can be blamed for, but the 'experts' in here think that it is wrong to appeal for donations to cover obvious resultant costs, seem never to have heard of 'an insurance excess' and consider it unreasonable that no update has been posted on Facebook from an inspection which expected/hoped to be undertaken this morning!

Fortunately, I suspect there are many who will be supporting the line in its hour of need rather than making insinuations and accusations.

Steven

 

As someone who dealt with a plethora of bridge strikes during my time at British Waterways I would not hold your breath expecting to get a penny out of insurers, unless you have photographic evidence they will not even entertain any claim, in one case a lorry hit a bridge whilst we were stood looking at it, he drove away and the company denied everything and no claim was honoured as it was our word against his and our legal team decided it wasn't worth the costs to try and prove.

The bridge on the way to the goods vehicle testing station was a particular target.