On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:42:27 +0100, Janet wrote:



You've gone off course. The "act of god get out" was proposed as an
excuse by the waterboard, should the flooded neighbourhood try to sue for
negligence.

No, I'm on course. I quoted a legal definition, not an insurance one.
Notwithstanding this, if an action is brought against the privatised
water company, it will be obliged to refer to its insurers.

Ask any insurer and they'll tell you it's
not worth bothering to refute a claim except in the most exceptional
circumstances.

??? Insurers often refuse claims by their clients . But the "act of
god" suggestion was not about insurance claims; it was a discussion of a
potential legal defence by the water authority .

I could have been clearer - refuting a claim on the "Act of God" basis
will be difficult in these circumstances. They (the authorities or
their insurers) may refute a claim on grounds of no liability and it
then becomes a case of disproving the refutation.

I have concerns that, in time, Baz may encounter problems obtaining or
financing insurance cover (and he's thinking of selling and moving, to
get a bigger garden, which will mean other obstacles to be overcome).
However he is "on the ground where he is". He has first hand knowledge
of what people are saying to him and he is thus better placed to judge
the honesty, or otherwise, of what he is being told.

Note that I mention my concerns that Baz may be wrong regarding future
insurance. (Plus, I recognise that he will have difficulty selling his
house now.) But I am not asserting that he IS wrong. No-one in this
group (apart from Baz) can assert that without first studying
documentation and speaking to those who have advised him.

I think that assessment by you is an error which disregards Baz's most
basic problem; he said he has dyslexia; a learning disability which makes
it very difficult to organise and assimilate information. He has
repeatedly demonstrated that problem on group, so there is every reason to
suppose the same applies IRL. To his interpretation, of what insurers or
solicitors say.

There are several sub-types of dyslexia.I grant that in this group Baz
has occasionally reacted (and has occasionally apologised for that),
presumably on the basis of a quick read of what is written and maybe a
quick temper. But I doubt very much that he is reading the
documentation he has acquired quickly - and, in the main, those with
dyslexia (I know several who are successful businessmen including an
accountant and a lawyer) simply need to read more slowly to assimilate
the facts; dyslexia, per se, does not affect their ability to
interpret the facts once assimilated. Plus Baz is clearly receiving
advice from his solicitor orally as well as in writing.

Baz has stated clearly in the past that his dyslexia impacts on
reading/writing and is not auditory.

When someone with dyslexia gets it wrong, patting him on the head and
telling him he knows best is absolutely no help to him.

You seem to imply that I am being patronising but if you are then it
is you who is being so. Re-read what I wrote - 'he is "on the ground
where he is". He has first hand knowledge of what people are saying to
him and he is thus better placed to judge the honesty, or otherwise,
of what he is being told.'

Note I use the word "saying", not "writing".

Cheers, Jake
=======================================
Urgling from the East End of Swansea Bay where sometimes
it's raining and sometimes it's not.