Legal and General refuse to pay out for a biker's loss of one leg because his policy said "Loss of limbs" How do these parasites sleep at night? I'm not surprised they didn't pay out as per the wording of the clause, but the fact they put it in there in the 1st place seems pre-meditated for just this type of event. Motorcyclist's injury claim rejected because he only lost one leg
So I'm guessing he did an ill timed overtake and the crash was his fault, hence no claim on the other party for the loss of limb. Shame, they shouldn't be allowed to do things like this to people. Why would a company word a document like that, as they know anyone only losing one limb will be getting a shit deal.
If it was his fault or not that's why people have insurance. Can't see it growing back within 26 weeks though.
Not at all saying he deserves it because it's his fault, just that a lot of the comments below the article couldn't understand why he wasn't claiming for his injuries from the car driver. I, like him, would expect my life insurance to cover loss of limb. In fact, mine is with legal and general so I will be giving mine a thorough read now.
