€22,000 Bill for driving inn Brussels premetro tunnels

[OwlMan]

http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2764703

Hefty bill for Range Rover driver who careered down into the premetro

Twitter - Bastien Nguyen

Sun 11/09/2016 - 09:59 CDC Driving your car down into the premetro is easier than getting it out. This is what a drunken motorist discovered when he careered down into the premetro with his Range Rover in February of this year.
The 4-wheel-drive sports utility vehicle descended into the premetro - tram lines that run through tunnels in the Brussels underground in anticipation of us forking out for a state-of-the-art metro extension - at the Albert station. It continued on its way past three stops finishing its journey at the South Station.
Returning the car to ground level required some considerable effort. As the vehicle was too large it couldn't be fitted onto rolling stock but had to be towed to the Lemonnier Station as would happen with a faulty tram.
Tow-away services were at work for 5 long hours and, as everybody who has had any experience with such services knows, this can be a costly affair. The bill for the work came out at 22,000 euros - no mean sum. The cost takes account of the type of vehicle, the time the vehicle was stuck in the premetro and the cost of diverting tram traffic as well as damage to premetro infrastructure.
According to the daily La Dernière Heure the metro authority MIVB plans to settle the matter with the driver's insurance.

see http://www.dhnet.be/regions/bruxell...ure-s-eleve-a-22-000-57d303043570646c923c34d0 for newspaper article in French

 

[CarlSilva]

According to the daily La Dernière Heure the metro authority MIVB plans to settle the matter with the driver's insurance.


see http://www.dhnet.be/regions/bruxell...ure-s-eleve-a-22-000-57d303043570646c923c34d0 for newspaper article in French

Why should an insurance company pay ? Surely it's the driver whose responsible. And isn't insurance for theft and accidents ? not drunken antics ?

 

[me123]

In a driving accident of any sort, the driver's 3rd party insurance will ensure that the innocent party is covered for any damages (for example, if I drive on the wrong side of the road and hit another car, my insurance pays for the repairs to the other driver's car).

I'm assuming that the same logic applies here - the driver caused damage to the metro that is being recuperated via his insurer. This is a sensible approach because I suspect that the driver probably doesn't €22,000 to spare, and with a criminal record and no access to a vehicle probably won't be able to get a decent job anyway. So the state/transport authority/tram company aren't left with the bill.

 

[MarcVD]

Although there are cases where the insurance pays and then turns back to the Customer to recover its money. Could very well happen here...

Envoyé de mon GT-I9505 en utilisant Tapatalk

 

[edwin_m]

There must be plenty of accidents where insurance pays out a much higher figure, particularly if injuries or fatalities are involved. The bill for Great Heck would have run into the tens of millions.

 

[duesselmartin]

Years ago in Dusseldorf, a driver mistook the blue Underground sign for a car park and went doen the stairs to the platform. Murphys law?

 

[AlexNL]

I would not be surprised if the insurance company refuses to pay out as the driver was intoxicated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would not be surprised if the insurance company refuses to pay out as the driver was intoxicated.

In the UK they can't refuse but can go on to sue the driver to recoup costs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MarcVD]

Same in Belgium, as already mentioned before...

Envoyé de mon GT-I9505 en utilisant Tapatalk

 

[Flying Snail]

I would not be surprised if the insurance company refuses to pay out as the driver was intoxicated.

Insurance wouldn't be much good if they refused to pay when the policy holder is at fault seeing as that is the purpose of it in the first place.

They can reclaim costs if the holder has broken certain clauses but will have to settle the third party claim with the claimant first.

Third party claims have to be honoured no matter what the insured has done while claims for the insured and their property may not be covered.

Same goes for bridge strikes, it is the insurer that will pay the railway's costs not the haulier, what then happens between the insurer and their client is down to their policy terms and all of it is separate from any criminal proceedings.