ABSTRACT
In the two cases above, the insurers were actually in the right insofar as their terms and conditions allowed them to say ‘no’. In the next case, the insurers were in the wrong-but they did their best to discourage a claimant from obtaining her rights:
Mrs W went for a walk with Mrs Y and her two scatty young dogs. The dogs knocked Mrs W over and she suffered a badly sprained ankle. Mrs Y had pet insurance but the insurers (let’s call them Petwell) quibbled forcefully. We won’t go into details here, but Petwell tried to blame Mrs W for walking with two boisterous dogs and then suggested that she had simply stumbled and fallen. Finally, they refused to pay out unless Mrs W got a county court judgment against the hapless Mrs Y.
