Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • phil0000
    • By phil0000 2nd Oct 17, 2:10 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 0Thanks
    phil0000
    Part of tree fallen on car at work
    • #1
    • 2nd Oct 17, 2:10 PM
    Part of tree fallen on car at work 2nd Oct 17 at 2:10 PM
    Today myself and about 5 others had parts of a tree fall down in the wind and caused lots of dents and scratches.

    The cars were parked in our allocated spacing, which is next to a river embankment which has several trees (probably around 60-80 feet high) overhanging the parking lot.

    The landlord of the site has asked us to provide name/car reg and picture evidence and has been very polite regarding the matter, non of us are angry at him just upset regarding our vehicles.

    Seeing as this is a commercial parking lot, would the landlords insurance be liable for this?
    Last edited by phil0000; 02-10-2017 at 2:27 PM. Reason: Spelling Error.
Page 2
    • debtdebt
    • By debtdebt 2nd Oct 17, 11:38 PM
    • 327 Posts
    • 209 Thanks
    debtdebt
    You pay it yourself - £1000.
    You hand it to your insurer - £200 excess.

    £1000 is less than £200.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    Not sure what your point is there? If the third party is liable, their outlay is still £1000.

    They either pay the whole £1000 directly to the owner if he paid it himself.

    Alternatively they pay £200 as an uninsured loss in the form of the excess to the owner of the vehicle and £800 to the insurer in settlement of their outlay.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 3rd Oct 17, 8:36 AM
    • 15,700 Posts
    • 14,015 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Not sure what your point is there? If the third party is liable, their outlay is still £1000.

    They either pay the whole £1000 directly to the owner if he paid it himself.

    Alternatively they pay £200 as an uninsured loss in the form of the excess to the owner of the vehicle and £800 to the insurer in settlement of their outlay.
    Originally posted by debtdebt
    The insurer have paid £800 under the terms of their contract with the policyholder. They do not have any grounds to pursue the landowner for those losses.

    The only loss that the OP has incurred, and can pursue the landowner for, is their £200 excess.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 3rd Oct 17, 9:24 AM
    • 659 Posts
    • 335 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    The insurer have paid £800 under the terms of their contract with the policyholder. They do not have any grounds to pursue the landowner for those losses.

    The only loss that the OP has incurred, and can pursue the landowner for, is their £200 excess.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    But how is that mitigating your loss?

    You have paid £200 and have an at fault claim to declare for five years.


    I get what youíre saying now but by that logic if you have insurance for anything and a third party is liable for damage to that property what you are effectively saying is you will only win in court if you sue for the cost of your excess.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 3rd Oct 17, 9:36 AM
    • 15,700 Posts
    • 14,015 Thanks
    AdrianC
    But how is that mitigating your loss?

    You have paid £200 and have an at fault claim to declare for five years.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    And if you can prove the costs pertaining to that (you can't, btw), then you can claim for those as uninsured losses, too. Don't forget you still need to declare this incident for five years, even if the landowner's insurance pays...

    I get what youíre saying now but by that logic if you have insurance for anything and a third party is liable for damage to that property what you are effectively saying is you will only win in court if you sue for the cost of your excess.
    Yup.
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 3rd Oct 17, 11:04 AM
    • 2,842 Posts
    • 2,338 Thanks
    Aretnap
    The insurer have paid £800 under the terms of their contract with the policyholder. They do not have any grounds to pursue the landowner for those losses.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    This is completely false. If the OP makes a claim on his insurance then his loss is subrogated to his insurance company under standard policy terms, so his insurers have the right to pursue the at fault party (if there is one) on his behalf. It is exactly the same principle that allows your insurer to recover their outlay from the at fault party (or his insurer) when someone drives into the back of you.

    The only loss that the OP has incurred, and can pursue the landowner for, is their £200 excess.
    Also false; assuming the landowner is liable (which is unlikely) the OP can pursue him for the full cost of the damage and is not under any obligation to go through his insurers instead. Just as when some muppet drives into the back of you it is quite normal to claim directly from his insurers rather than to claim on your own policy - the principle is the same whether it was a tree or a car that did the damage.

    The OP's loss has already occurred and cannot be mitigated by claiming on his own insurance policy; his only obligation with regard to mitigating his loss is now to prevent further losses, eg by getting the scratches repaired promptly rather than leaving them to go rusty and then claiming for a more expensive repair.

    OP: in spite of the above your best option now is probably to make a claim on your own insurance policy. If they think there's a case against the landowner (they probably won't, if he's had the tree inspected recently) they'll chase him for the money and if they get it back they'll restore your NCD. Don't hold your breath, however. Alternatively if the claim looks like it would increase you're premium by more than the cost of repair (do some dummy quotes on a comparison site to get an idea) then you're probably best putting it down as one of those things and fixing the damage yourself.
    • Shaka_Zulu
    • By Shaka_Zulu 3rd Oct 17, 11:10 AM
    • 1,236 Posts
    • 2,847 Thanks
    Shaka_Zulu
    I don't think a claim like this would have much effect on the future cost of a policy. It is a no fault claim.
    Show me the man and Iíll show you the crime Beria/Momentum
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 3rd Oct 17, 1:24 PM
    • 2,842 Posts
    • 2,338 Thanks
    Aretnap
    I don't think a claim like this would have much effect on the future cost of a policy. It is a no fault claim.
    Originally posted by Shaka_Zulu
    It will be treated as a fault claim and result in a reduction in the OP's no claims bonus unless his insurer manages to recover their costs from the landowner - which they are unlikely to be able to do if the landowner can show that he took reasonable care to maintain the trees.

    "Fault" in insurance jargon merely refers to the question of whether the insurer was able to recover its costs from an at-fault third party - not the question of whether the policyholder's own conduct was in any way culpable.
    • phil0000
    • By phil0000 3rd Oct 17, 3:13 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    phil0000
    Small update:

    We're hoping to discuss further with the landlord specifically around the concern had hit a human it may have resulted in serious injury/death.

    Nobody in the company wants to take the risk of damage to their cars or potentially a branch falling down on them, so parking at the moment is an issue for everyone whilst the trees remain.

    Based on the wind speeds yesterday which were reported to be 31 MPH, I don't think that it was an unusual amount of wind by any means.

    Thanks guys for all the responses.
    • martinsurrey
    • By martinsurrey 3rd Oct 17, 4:57 PM
    • 3,225 Posts
    • 3,927 Thanks
    martinsurrey
    This, in a nutshell.

    what you've said, it sounds like the landowner has been pretty fair. Getting - presumably professional - tree surgeons in to assess the trees and take whatever remedial action is necessary.
    Originally posted by Ebe Scrooge
    You know what they say about the presumption?

    Anyone can buy a chainsaw and claim to be a Tree surgeon.

    OP if you and your colleagues wish to pursue, you need the following

    1) an independent report by a registered tree surgeon on the condition of the tree that fell, you need this soon, so it relates to the trees condition at the time it fell.

    (I suggest an Arboricultural Association registered tree surgeon)

    they will let you know if the tree was healthy or was obviously diseased.

    If it was healthy, its an act of God, no negligence on any party, claim on your insurance.

    if not move to 2)

    2) get details of the tree surgeon the landlord used. either

    a) the landlord hired a cowboy without checking their credentials
    b) the landlord hired a reputable firm who dropped a clanger.

    in either case the landowner is liable, either though negligent hiring, or negligence by his agents (but in the second case he could sue the reputable firm).

    3) legal up.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

268Posts Today

1,536Users online

Martin's Twitter