Ron, GW3YDX wrote:
> This guy had a good tower before the truck hit it. We work over
>here on the principle of restoration to that was before, as the central
>concept of assessing damages.
>I think the truck company are trying it on.
I e-mailed Paul in very similar terms. Prorating probably wouldn't be
legal under English (and Welsh) law about third-party insurance claims.
The principle is that the perpetrator's insurance company must put the
victim back into the same situation as before the accident, and/or pay
compensation. If they have to buy new parts to replace functional old
parts, that's their problem, not the victim's.
The main exception where prorating can apply over here is when the
damaged part has a short natural lifetime, and would eventually have had
to be replaced soon anyway (example: a car muffler or a tire). Even then
it can be argued the other way, that the victim should not have to pay
anything towards replacing the part earlier than planned.
The details of US state and federal law will obviously be different, but
insurance prorating is basically a racket. Don't accept it!
73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com