Pecuniary Loss Clause Samples

Pecuniary Loss. 5.1 Loss of classes / Reimbursement for inability to attend class

Pecuniary Loss. We will indemnify you in accordance with the operative clause for damages and costs and expenses arising as a result of any pecuniary loss incurred by customers or third parties as a result of any product or part thereof which fails to perform the function for which it was manufactured, designed, sold, supplied, installed, repaired, despatched or delivered by you or on your behalf.

Pecuniary Loss. 19. Regarding the claimant’s pain, suffering and loss of amenity, her evidence was that, although she had asthma, she had a normal working and domestic life, which changed in 2010. After the incident, she experienced trouble with swallowing, which affected her eating and drinking. Further, she described that she had developed skin problems, soreness in the mouth and difficulty sleeping due to excessive snoring. She was now restricted to indoor life and can no longer play sports. She frequently feels depressed and has to take a daily dose of medication. She averred, further, that she has had to adjust her home life, and, now, was unable to perform her usual domestic duties. It has severely restricting her ability to socialize or work full time, which she misses. 20. On pecuniary prospects, the claimant ceased working with DESALCOTT on 1 June 2012, but obtained other employment in 2013. She had pleaded twenty-one years loss of earnings, but her counsel submitted that her pecuniary prospects were not materially affected and made no further submissions, so it was assumed the claim was abandoned. 21. Counsel for the claimant suggested an award within the range of $250,000.00 to $300,000.00 for the injury sustained whilst counsel for DESALCOTT recommended the nominal sum of $5,000.00 or alternatively the sum of $195,168.41. In my view, a nominal award was patently unfair so I rejected it outright. The claimant, despite the brevity of the exposure, suffered harm from DESALCOTT’s tort. I did not accept the diagnosis of RADS but it was undeniable that the claimant suffered harm. In my view, the injury was not as significant, long lasting or physically flattening health wise, as she would like me to believe. The evidence simply did not prove, to my satisfaction, that the exposure caused such a debilitating effect on the claimant that several years later, her pain and suffering remained unabated. The claimant continued working for several years post-exposure so was able to function or manage the effects on her health caused by the fumes. A claimant must satisfy a court on the evidence that, on balance, the injury suffered resulted in major pain, suffering and losses such as to attract the significant award sought. A minor exposure to toxic gases would still have caused breathing challenges, with considerable discomfort and pain. Even if I were to accept the two-week upper limit for exacerbation submitted by DESALCOTT, a nominal award would not meet the justice of the...