Page 111 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 110

private loss of licence which was 3 years of net salary £251 k they say I have to pay it
back if in the 3 years I go back working as a pilot.
RF There is a conceptual difference in law. You are entitled to the £250k because of
contract of insurance, not because of the accident. Therefore, you should be able to
keep that on top of loss of earnings. Initially, I thought you would have to repay
easyJet but you were paying that from your salary every month (c.£100). Everything
I'm saying is subject to seeing the documentation----.

RF The law in general is that if you are prudent enough to have insurance, you should
not be penalised for it. Cirencester is different because as term of your contract with
them that they will get re-paid what they are replacing as loss of earnings. which we
are claiming. Subject to me seeing everything. I think you will be able to keep the
lump sum payments on top of your loss of earnings. There is a case called Pirelli
General v Jan Gloaca COA 2004. Cirencester has a subrogated claim, and you have to
claim on behalf of them. This doesn't affect you or what we are claiming.

It has been my lifeline. Wise to do it. Without I would be homeless now. No one
would have looked after me. I would be bankrupt and lose my home and family. I
can see why people get depressed and worse, because ifs not just about livelihood,
it's everything.

Mr Solheim was confident that he would return to flying but said that "it was not in his
interest to recover too quickly". KN believed that any additional policies were privately
funded; this is not the case. It is clear that counsel had not been informed of the AIG
policy. Mr Solheim's comment about doubling up insurance coverage is also notable.
There is no evidence that counsel ever reviewed the insurance documentation in depth

16 June 2017: email to Kingsley Napley
th
It's all very well to bang on about that. Should I get penalised that I took out an insurance 15
years ago protecting myself from losing my flying licence. Had I followed Richards' suggestion
10 months ago taking a lower paid job to mitigate my losses we would have been homeless
by now. I would have struggled paying my ex-wife and she would have stopped me seeing
the children and so on ...... the insurance has saved me from going bankrupt which the legal
system doesn't care about.

This is not true by June 201 7, Mr Solheim had already received benefits in excess
£900,000 and was awash with cash.

th
7 October 2017--- killer email
f\OM'1' �: �·
./ (PI" /11(;
23 October 201 7 /
rd
/
7 March 2018: Joint Settlement Meeting
th
"The claimant has openly acknowledged the effect of the insurance policy taken out a year
before the index accident. While the defendant cannot offset the amounts claimant has
received, the claimant has at all times remained under an obligation to mitigate his losses--­
and has failed to discharge this duty. At trial the defendant will explore the combined effect 0
of family pressures------- inconsistent reporting of symptoms and the combined effect of the n
insurance policy safety net and on-going litigation" QJ
00
ro
0...