d l.

Applicable at this time.

They are ok. In my experience - they aren't worse than anyone else. I'll be keeping my policy with them.

You might be in an accident, or come close to being in one. Car-car, car-pedestrian. The words direct line gave me were "if this had come to the small claims court, the judge would say this..."

Now.
I would recommend being a judge.
There are two worlds.

One is the real world. Real world includes people, biological brains, physics, and not being able to predict the future to the nearest inch.

The other world, is the judges world. Now in the judges world, every single accident is fully preventable.

In the judges world, "you should have done this". "if you had done this, the accident would not have occurred".

In the judges world, the only things that exist in the universe, are the laws of science, physics and electricity.

There is no reaction time. There are no biological brains. There is zero emotion. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight, and knows what they should have done, before they do it. In the judges world, everyone is operating at 100%, all the time - there is no RMS level of operation. There are no pauses, there are no mistakes.

Money is not an issue in the judges world.

It must be superb being a judge, because your life and existence is ruled by a set of perfect rules, which means nothing bad happens, because every adverse effect is fully preventable.

In a judges world, you are expected to put your property at risk, if someone else acts like a f**kin' id1ot. It doesn't matter that the other person has the IQ of a pear. Why didn't you potentially cause a different accident, to avoid the first accident?

Yes. If you had avoided an accident, you may have got your own property damaged. Verbal abuse. Endangered others.

"and if that had happened, you can be fully assured, that I, the judge, would have given full and appropriate... oh... I don't know... is it sandwich time, yet? I'm hungry"

I would be quite interested... to see the scripts that direct line operators follow. They sound professional. Obviously they (direct line) are relying on you to provide the evidence they need to avoid (accepting responsibility) and paying out. They don't want to pay out to the other party.

"I spoke to the other party, and they really didn't sound like they were just out to get as much free items (following damaged items) as possible."

Really.? You don't think they just wanted free up-to-date replacements of a mobile phone and an ipad? I'm not entirely convinced.

At this time I'll be keeping my policy. I am sure they are at least as good as any other insurance provider.

Edit - even more appropriate at this time. It shows the difference between a judge, and nature.

A judge will decide, that if it is possible for something not to happen, it shouldn't have happened.
Nature says that if it is possible for something to happen, it will happen.
That is the difference between the law, and nature. A judges imagination.