Burst pipe in my house - neighbour uninsured

MMLS

cccs1986 wrote: »

Which insurance company?
I speak with some experience - havng had two flood damage insurance claims on two different let properties in under 12 months!

I'm with Legal and General.

MMLS

CloudCuckooLand wrote: »

Her not having her own insurance just means it won't be a simple "knock for knock" type claim, like might happen with car insurance.

She still has a claim against the person or cause responsible for the damage. i.e. You. In which case you invoke your insurance

Ask her to submit estimates/bills for repair, and pass them to your insurer to pay up.

Thanks CCL. I need all this info so that I know how to proceed. I'll be doing my level best to do the right thing.

cccs1986

Assuming it's a proper Landlord's insurance policy...
Normally these policies state that a property that is left vacant must be inspected by the landlord every seven days. However, you say that the tenant was only away for 24 hours. Do you know the cause of the burst pipe? A freezing pipe in the attic sounds unlikely. Anyway, unless the insurance company can prove that it burst through negligence, they should just pay up. I had AXA on my first claim and had no problems at all. The total claim was for £15000!

Now with regard to your neighbour, I cannot see how you can be held liable if they have failed to get their own insurance. The most you could lose is you excess, which you'll have to pay anyway. To compare it to car insurance - say you had an accident with an uninsured driver, would you be expected to pay damage to the uninsured driver?! No

My experience is that it would cost these insurance companies far more to contest these things - they will send out their loss adjustor and hopefully simply settle, which they did for me.

MMLS

G_M wrote: »

The neighbour may be able to claim against you for the damage. You in turn may be able to claim the cost on your insurance under a clause such as:

F – Your liability as the owner of the property

We will pay for all amounts you become legally liable for, as a result
of you owning your home and its land, or owning or occupying any
previous property, if a claim is made against you for:
a) accidental death of or bodily injury to any person; or
b) accidental loss of or damage to property;
which happened during the period of insurance shown in

the schedule.

If, as Torry suggests abobe, negligence is required, well it is likely that as the property was left empty by the tenants during cold weather with, I assume, no precautions taken against freezing of pipes, this could be negligent.

On the flip side, there may be a clause in the policy REQUIRING such precautions, the lack of which might totally invalidate the claim (yours AND the neighbour's).

You may also have legal protection (a common optional extra) which would pay for claims by your neighbour.

I suggest you read your policy closely.

Thanks G_M. Your comments were really helpful. I've re-read and I do have third party liability.
It's a longer story than my post suggests and I think it may well end up with my solicitor sorting it all out for me unfortunately. (Nothing to do with my neighbour though.)

MMLS

cccs1986 wrote: »

Assuming it's a proper Landlord's insurance policy...
Normally these policies state that a property that is left vacant must be inspected by the landlord every seven days. However, you say that the tenant was only away for 24 hours. Do you know the cause of the burst pipe? A freezing pipe in the attic sounds unlikely. Anyway, unless the insurance company can prove that it burst through negligence, they should just pay up. I had AXA on my first claim and had no problems at all. The total claim was for £15000!

Now with regard to your neighbour, I cannot see how you can be held liable if they have failed to get their own insurance. The most you could lose is you excess, which you'll have to pay anyway. To compare it to car insurance - say you had an accident with an uninsured driver, would you be expected to pay damage to the uninsured driver?! No

My experience is that it would cost these insurance companies far more to contest these things - they will send out their loss adjustor and hopefully simply settle, which they did for me.

Sent you a PM.

PasturesNew

She has a claim against you. You are lucky enough to have insurance who will pay out on your behalf.

Whether you have a claim against your tenant is another issue, which you may/may not pursue.

But, she needs to have her house put back to how it was without paying for it - which means you (your insurance) will be coughing up.

If you didn't have insurance, she'd still have a valid claim against you.

PasturesNew

cccs1986 wrote: »

To compare it to car insurance - say you had an accident with an uninsured driver, would you be expected to pay damage to the uninsured driver?! No

But if the uninsured driver's car was in their driveway and you drove your car through their front wall to hit it ...? Which is effectively what the OP's tenant has done.

MMLS

PasturesNew wrote: »

She has a claim against you. You are lucky enough to have insurance who will pay out on your behalf.

Whether you have a claim against your tenant is another issue, which you may/may not pursue.

But, she needs to have her house put back to how it was without paying for it - which means you (your insurance) will be coughing up.

If you didn't have insurance, she'd still have a valid claim against you.

I'm not trying to duck my responsibility. I intend to put it right with or without insurance even if that means taking out a loan. The advice from cccs1986, G_M and CloudCuckooLand was just what I was looking for. Many thanks.

sonastin

People often confuse being liable for damage and having insurance to cover the cost of that liability. Just because someone doesn't have insurance doesn't mean they aren't liable for the costs. I am glad to hear that the OP has accepted liability and it sounds like he also has insurance to cover him.

The comparison with car insurance is wrong because car insurance is a legal requirement. Property insurance is entirely optional and doesn't stop you from having to pay out if you are liable.

DVardysShadow

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Your insurer is correct, you are only liable if negligent and could have forseen the burst happening. For instance if maintanence was not performed. It's very sad but that is why everyone should have insurance.

This is largely mistaken. There is a freeze on and a burst is forseeable. Negligence is scarcely relevant. Yhe water is a "nuisance" emanating from OP's property. OP is liable for consequences of failing to prevent the nuisance.

cccs1986 wrote: »

You are not liable for damage to the elderly neighbour's damage. That is what insurance is for. Whether she has her own insurance or not is irrelevant in thiis case, as she would claim against your insurance company (not you)

This is grossly mistaken. Insurance makes NO DIFFERENCE to the question of liability. All insurance does is to make payment once liability has been established. OP is liable because OP has failed to control the nuisance

cccs1986 wrote: »

Assuming it's a proper Landlord's insurance policy...
Normally these policies state that a property that is left vacant must be inspected by the landlord every seven days. However, you say that the tenant was only away for 24 hours. Do you know the cause of the burst pipe? A freezing pipe in the attic sounds unlikely. Anyway, unless the insurance company can prove that it burst through negligence, they should just pay up. I had AXA on my first claim and had no problems at all. The total claim was for £15000!

Now with regard to your neighbour, I cannot see how you can be held liable if they have failed to get their own insurance. The most you could lose is you excess, which you'll have to pay anyway. To compare it to car insurance - say you had an accident with an uninsured driver, would you be expected to pay damage to the uninsured driver?! No

My experience is that it would cost these insurance companies far more to contest these things - they will send out their loss adjustor and hopefully simply settle, which they did for me.

Again, this is grossly mistaken. If there is an accident with an uninsured driver, but an insured driver was responsible, an offence would be committed by the uninsured driver, sure enough, which might cloud the issue. But insurance does not affect the question of responsibility to pay, not one little bit. Insurance is only a means of paying, once liability has been established.

MMLS wrote: »

In short, a pipe burst in the attic of the house that I let. The tenant was away as was the next door neighbour and the water probably leaked for 24 hours at least. Every inch of my house is soaked and I don't yet know the extent of the damage but I have landlords insurance so am hopefully covered for it but my concern is with my neighbour. I asked my insurers if my policy covered the damage done to her house but was told that she has to claim on her own insurance and they in turn would claim off mine (as I'd thought). Having spoken to my neighbours daughter I'm told that she let the insurance lapse and isn't covered.

I feel awful about this as my neighbour is an elderly lady but I don't have the money to pay for her repairs.

Can anyone advise me please?

Many thanks

To clarify, the advice from the insurance company is correct, but only partially complete, so it is a bit misleading. Of course the insurance company would give that answer - it appears to fob off the old lady. But the truth of the matter is she should make her claim against the OP, who should refer it to his insurer - or she could make it direct to the OP's insurer.

She will not in law be disadvantaged by not having her own insurance.