Definition of malicious damage

peredur_2

Thanks everyone for your continued encouragement.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

Tbh I can see both arguments

If your policy excludes malicous damage caused by tennants, then I dont see how you can claim that torching the place wasnt a malicous act to cause damage.

Likewise it was a fire

Reckon you will have a long and tedious battle that may well come down to a judges mood on a day as Id imagine the legal precedence will exist for both arguments.

peredur_2

We now have a Barristers opinion and are issuing proceedings. I never thought I would type such a sentence.

dacouch

I'm guessing the barrister's opinion was similar to the posters on here

peredur_2

It was as if he had been following the thread!

dacouch

I'm not surprised, the reason we are all singing from the same hymn sheet is that malicious damage and fire both have definitions that are recognised legally. They have for criminal prosecutions and for insurance contract law etc.

This is why you get the same answers from everyone, I amazed someone in Zurich did not realise this a long time ago and settle your claim. You will not be the first person that has had a claim in these types of circumstances and won't be the last. They should know they are fighting a losing battle and will just add to their costs.


Anyway nice to hear your good news and I hope it all comes out in the wash

raskazz

dacouch wrote: »

I'm not surprised, the reason we are all singing from the same hymn sheet is that malicious damage and fire both have definitions that are recognised legally. They have for criminal prosecutions and for insurance contract law etc.

Out of interest (as household material damage is not my specialty), what is the legal definition of malicious damage? A search of the net hasn't thrown much up for me. From a layperson's perspective I would assume that arson was merely one form of malicious damage, rather than the two being a mutually exclusive pairing.

dacouch

Fire is a specific peril that is covered under the policy is the simple answer.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fire

http://www.answers.com/topic/arson

raskazz

dacouch wrote: »

Fire is a specific peril that is covered under the policy is the simple answer.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fire

http://www.answers.com/topic/arson

Yes, clearly fire as a peril is covered but the proximate cause of fire in this case is the malicious intent of the tenant. Fire was merely the mechanism by which malicious damage was inflicted.

For example, as a couple of parallels:

Escape of water will be an insured peril, but if the cause of the escape was the tenant taking an axe to water pipes then IMO that would be malicious damage and thus excluded (though in this example you could perhaps argue that the malicious damage was to the pipes and so the damage to the pipes would be excluded but the resultant flood damage would not).

Impact damage by a vehicle will be an insured peril, but if the cause of the impact was the tenant deliberately driving into the property then again IMO that would be malicious damage and thus excluded.

From what the OP mentioned earlier the exclusion of malicious damage by a tenant is a general exclusion which would exclude all malicious damage by the tenant regardless of the particular peril via which the damage was inflicted.

Can you see where I'm coming from?

dacouch

I can but it does not work like that with fire