Fuse Dilemma

Bullshit.

If a 6A trip failed to trip, the insurance company would sue the manufacturer.

Subrogated rights. They would have to prove the case though, which could be difficult if the evidence has been destroyed in a fire.

Replace 'would' with 'could'. I have never known an insurance company sue a manufacturer. Also any contract is with the final supplier of the goods.

Either way, feel free to provide an example of where an "insurance company would sue the manufacturer". I know you won't be able to as per typical of your silly claims.

Does Donoghue v Stevenson not apply in English law?

No, the issue is that you have deliberately ignored an instruction regarding installation of the fan. You, and others, might not consider it necessary, but the fan supplier does. All the insurance company have to do is show that something regarding the policy has not been complied with. If you don't believe this, have a look at this decision. This did involve a fire, but the reason for the reduced payout by the insurance company (Accelerant) was upheld by the ombudsman:

It was a commercial policy, which may be different from a household one. Note this part of the decision: "Accelerant accepts that the qualifying breach wasn’t deliberate or reckless. In these circumstances, the Act says that the insurer may reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim."

How much reduced would a payout be where the breach was deliberate or reckless, in other words ignoring an instruction by the fan supplier to include a fuse?

Certainly a landmark case.

However, a one-off manufacturing fault with a QA inspection procedure will not satisfy a claim using a lack of "duty of care" argument.

So, provide an example for an MCB or similar device.

Would this not be one of the facta probanda?

A further thought: you could put a 3A fuse inside the fan enclosure if you wanted a fuse but not an FCU.

I've used an isolating fan pull-switch for this purpose. It also switches all 3 conductors to the fan.

In so far evidence of QA procedure would dismiss such a case.

Do you work in the public sector? Rules for fools is definitely your area of expertise.]

Agreed, if such evidence is accepted of course.

What about when Manufacturers Instructions say 'must be installed by a NICEIC registered electrician' I've seen that a number of times. Thats why the electrical regs had a wording change a few years back, so such stupid Manufacturers Instructions can be ignored.

As an aside, an instruction now seems to be appearing to the effect that children from 8 years and above can use, clean and perform user maintenance on this appliance in accordance with the User Instructions provided they are supervised by a person responsible for their safety and have been given instruction concerning the use of the appliance and are aware of the hazards.

I wonder where the age of eight came from. I don't think this is a recognised stage of legal capacity.

I might similarly have ignored an instruction about smoking in bed.

Quite so. But it takes time and many examples before it is shown to be unnecessary. The question remains that if the insurance company refuses to pay out, and you complain to the ombudsman before the regs have changed, will he find in your favour or not?

I know of such a case (many years ago), keys left in car, insurance company tried to wriggle out of paying up but in they end they paid. I think it was down to the intentions behind leaving the keys in the car, the claimant said he left them there by mistake and that was enough to make the claim good.

Most policies now have a wording to remove this sort of claim.