Neighbours BBQ set fire to my shed...

redpete

cherrybee22 wrote: »

I am confused, that's why I'm on here! My excess is £300 for the claim on buildings ( the shed itself) and £300 for contents, which means if I claim for both I will have to pay both (my insurance and loss adjuster have both told me this).

You've misunderstood what they told you. The excess is the maximum amount of a claim that will not be covered by your insurance company.

If your claim is less than the excess then you will get nothing, if your claim is for more than the excess you will get that amount less the excess.

Claim £100, excess £300, you get nothing.
Claim £300, excess £300, you get nothing.
Claim £400, excess £300, you get £100.

You are probably correct that the shed is covered under buildings and the contents under contents, and each is treated as a separate claim with the separate excesses.

geri1965 wrote:

You do appear a little confused. Your claim is for £350 and your excess is £300.

I don't think so, there is a claim for £200 with an excess of £300 and a separate claim for £150 also with an excess of £300.

cherrybee22

Oh I see what you mean, sorry I'm useless with these things, have never had to claim before!

geri1965_2

redpete wrote: »

I don't think so, there is a claim for £200 with an excess of £300 and a separate claim for £150 also with an excess of £300.

I wasn't sure if a shed would be classed as a building - are they not removable items?

geri1965_2

cherrybee22 wrote: »

I have now spoken to my neighbours insurance company, who refused to speak to me regarding the incident and told me that I have to go through my insurer.

You need to tell them that you are pursuing it as a claim for public liability. It will be a separate claim to the one they are dealing with on behalf of their policyholder, dealt with in another department.

cogito

If you claim through your own insurance you get new for old cover - a new shed and new tools etc.

Surely the shed is part of the buildings cover rather than contents in which case settlement is based on Reinstatement rather than 'new for old'. These may be similar but not the same.

Thus, if the shed is a dilapidated wreck (as many are), Reinstatement will theoretically be another dilapidated wreck. The OP cetainly wouldn't get a new one in that case - either from his own insurers or his neighbour's insurers.

mattymoo

cogito wrote: »

Surely the shed is part of the buildings cover rather than contents in which case settlement is based on Reinstatement rather than 'new for old'. These may be similar but not the same.

Thus, if the shed is a dilapidated wreck (as many are), Reinstatement will theoretically be another dilapidated wreck. The OP cetainly wouldn't get a new one in that case - either from his own insurers or his neighbour's insurers.

You're probably right but I would suspect the logistics of trying to source another dilapidated shed and ship it to the OP's address and erect it would lead most insurers to simply replace with a new one.

rudekid48

Out of interest, was there a fence between the sheds? And if so did this get damaged as well? If so, this could be the trigger to make the claim worthwhile as Mattymoo suggested earlier (i.e. increase the size of he claim).

Just a thought....

geri1965_2

cogito wrote: »

Surely the shed is part of the buildings cover rather than contents in which case settlement is based on Reinstatement rather than 'new for old'. These may be similar but not the same.

I thought buildings cover was designed to cover the fabric of the building itself, i.e. the house.

A shed is not a building - is it? Surely a shed is part of your contents, albeit something you keep in the garden.

thelawnet

mattymoo wrote: »

It is so frustrating to see someone given such duff advice by someone in the industry. I'll try and explain the problem.

Frustrating, but not surprising I'm sure. My experience of insurers is that they will tell you you're not covered, they're not liable, whatever. If you have sufficient persistence to point out that you are and they are talking rubbish, they will eventually pay out.

If you claim from another persons insurers you are essentially claiming from your neighbour. If it went to court it would be "Cherrybee vs BBQ Numpty" and not "Cherrybee vs BBQ Numpty's insurers".

Now, the problem is, new for old does not apply. Your neighbour (and therefore his insurers) are only obliged to give you what the items were worth second hand. This will then put you back in the same FINANCIAL position as you were in before the fire. If the shed and contents were old, this could mean a very low payout.

You are entitled to put back into the same position you were before the damage occurred. If it cost £300 to repair a shed then they would have to pay it. That's despite the fact that it might only be 'worth' £200.

When it comes to things like lawnmowers, then you could say 'buy a second hand one on ebay', because that would indeed have the effect of restoring your position. But with buildings, that's not going to be possible, you just claim the cost of repair, which might well exceed the nominal value of a 20 year old shed.

cogito

mattymoo wrote: »

You're probably right but I would suspect the logistics of trying to source another dilapidated shed and ship it to the OP's address and erect it would lead most insurers to simply replace with a new one.

Or make a cash offer. Replacement is not the only option in the policy.