Definition of malicious damage

raskazz

dacouch wrote: »

I can but it does not work like that with fire

OK, I'm quite happy to take your word for that on the basis of your typically knowledgeable posts, but I'd be happier if I understood why that was the case!

Edited to add: Actually, on reading the thread more closely the exclusion refers to 'Event 3 (Malicious Damage)' so I suppose it really comes down to how the section on malicious damage is drafted in the policy wording.

cogito

Arson is usually the result of a malicious action but insurers do not refuse such claims even where Malicious Damage is not insured e.g. unoccupied premises.

Kittian_the_Blue

The reason that Arson falls within the fire peril (I was alway led to believe) was because that originally insurance was a "fire policy" and this well predates what we know as the malicious damage peril. I think the problem with this case is people at Zurich not understanding the basic principles of insurance properly and is why the industry ends up with a bad reputation.

peredur_2

Court proceedings have been issued. Our barrister says we have a good chance. Their barrister also thinks they have a good chance.

What a drag.

dacouch

I would not be surprised if they pay up just before the court case, Insurance works on the definitions of words and the definition Insurers use for Arson and Malicious Damage are well known.

crittertog

dacouch wrote: »

I would not be surprised if they pay up just before the court case, Insurance works on the definitions of words and the definition Insurers use for Arson and Malicious Damage are well known.

Wouldn't be surprising. A time ago, a relative issued proceedings against their car insurance company for failing to cover a claim (parked, unoccupied vehicle driven into by unidentified 3rd party). The insurers turned up with a barrister and 4 other solicitor types, only to settle in full once the court usher(?) called the case to be heard.

dacouch

I agree Crittertog, Insurers are businesses and are well versed in legal proceedings, its pointless for them to pay for court and associated costs if they think they will lose.

I'm fairly sure the OP will win the case (Obviously we don't know the full details but on the details they have given its fairly open and shut). I'm surprised Zurich are going down this route as they are a very big and well respected Insurer. Property Insurance is their bread and butter business so this case could lose them business. As a broker knowing they are doing this to a customer with a seemingly valid claim has put me off placing property business with them

MrsMarshall_2

Whenever I have come across a claim where the proximate cause is not 100% clear I would take the decision of the police and follow that route.

So in this case as the police are dealing with it as Arson then it would be registered as a fire claim.

The same process would apply if there was an item missing... If the police decided it was a theft we would deal with as a theft and so on.

I really hope this works out for you, it seems they are being very unfair.

They would not normally be able to class fire damage as malicious damage as it has its own section against the policy cover which has a definate meaning. The two shouldn't cross?!

Good luck!

Kittian_the_Blue

It never ceases to amaze me how claims handlers will follow a wrong decision to the bitter end.There is no way I'd run a case like this to trial - firstly the value isn't high enough and secondly the case is far too weak. As soon as anyone with any sense sees the case they will make you an offer (probably just before trial bundles are prepared)

FlameCloud

I strongly suspect that either the insurers are either relying on an exceptionally technical argument or there is something the OP isn't telling us.

This claim wont be being dealt with by 'claims handlers' though- if barristers are involved and the matter is going to court it will be being dealt with at the very highest levels of the insurer.