• EdanGrey
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    11 months ago

    While I think this is bonkers, the organisation and the charity should ideally both have insurance too. I’m a trustee for a charity that organises marathons for fundraising and we have insurance partly in case the worst happens.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      I do agree, but part of me wonders if the insurer for an event would still give her the runaround.

      The fact remains that the driver was found to be responsible, so someone’s insurance needs to help this lady out. The driver was uninsured, so her insurance company needs to step up.

      I’m glad the article names and shames the company. 😀

      • fpslem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Agreed. It’s one thing to defend an insured from a claim. It’s another thing entirely for an insurer to refuse to protect its own customer who was paying it insurance premiums for years just in case she got in a crash with an uninsured driver. Shame, shame on them.

        I have less of a problem with the comparative fault assertions, assuming there is a legitimate basis for them. And yeah, it’s weird the charity didn’t have insurance for the event, but I can think of several ways it could have been excluded from coverage, so it’s hard to say.