Paying neighbour damage > Which insurance?

sun_tzu

Hiya,
Just recently bought a flat.
Imagine I have a flood for whatever reason (example: hose from the washing machine) and water damages the flat of my neighbours.
What is the insurance to cover those damages to my neighbours?
Building insurance or contents insurance?

McKneff

Good point but i think it would be contents, as you would be the insurer.
If it was buildings then the LL would be liable.

On another note =

I think, and only think, its to do with negligence. If you are negligent and the neighbour can prove it they claim from you.

If it isnt neglgence then they have to claim on their own insurance

lisyloo

Imagine I have a flood for whatever reason (example: hose from the washing machine) and water damages the flat of my neighbours.

You are only liable if it was your fault.
If it was a pure accident then your neighbour unfortunately has to pay for the damage caused to their property as it wasn't your fault.

If it was your fault. e.g. you'd failed to maintain something that had been leaking for ages, then you would be liable for it.

Not sure which it is (buildings/contents) but why does that matter?

McKneff

I think it would matter because the OP would have the contents insurance and the LL would be paying the buildings insurance

lisyloo

Yes, I know that.
What I don't understand is why that matters.
Unless the OP is thinking of skipping contents insurance and is wondering about the consequences??

I think this falls under "occupiers" liability and is part of the contents cover.
http://www.aviva.co.uk/home-insurance/summary-of-cover.html

So if you skip contents cover then you'd lose cover for anything that is the occupiers liability e.g. landlord slips on your wet kitchen floor and gets injured and then sues you.

huckster

Yes it is Contents Insurance. Personal and occupiers liability is relevant if negligence is proved.

With Buildings Insurance liability, this is mainly for instances where the property had been built incorrectly or you have had work done, which later without your knowledge or involvement, causes injury to a 3rd party or their property.

G_M

Hang on here! It's impossible to say without knowing what has been damaged!

Buildings covers things fixed to the building, so if the water poors down onto the fixed kitchen units in the flat below, or ruins the plaster and wallpaper, that would be buildings cover.

If it destroys a 3 piece suite and (loose) floor rugs, that would be contents cover.

huckster

GM

The OP's thread is about liability to their neighbour and not to do with which section of cover the neighbour might claim from on their own Insurances.

We know things fitted to the structure are Buildings and things which are not fitted or stuck down which could be taken with you if you moved are Contents.

The question raised is whether the OP could be responsible for paying his neighbours costs in relation to water leaking from their flat, down to the neighbours. The answer is yes if they are negligent and no if they are not. Negligence could be where the OP had known about a faulty washing machine for example and they continued to use it, even though they knew it leaked. The neighbour if they knew about this would claim against the OP, who would pass on to their Contents Insurance. Contents Insurance covers personal liability, which this could be a case of.

There have been loads of threads on here about this is the last week. People get confused between what moral responsibilty and legal liability.

lisyloo

Buildings covers things fixed to the building, so if the water poors down onto the fixed kitchen units in the flat below, or ruins the plaster and wallpaper, that would be buildings cover.

No, I think you're wrong in this context.
Your buildings insurance covers you for YOUR buidling.
If you are liable for other people property then that comes under the liability section.
As already stated if it's an accident then you are not liable anyway.
You are only liable if you were negligent i.e. didn't maintain things.

It may be a surprise but if a roof tile falls off or there is a leak etc. then the householder is not liable if it's just a freak accident.

The general rule of law is that you are only liable if negligent.

FlameCloud

There are other things you can be liable for- under civil tort law the other most obvious ones would be either nusiance or tresspass to property. You can also be pursued for breach of a statuatory duty or where you are strictly liabile, both of which need no negligence at all.

In my experience insurers are really starting to go down paths other than the most obvious negligence one now.