Damage to third party vehicle on our property - liable?

Quentin

If they say you aren't covered that will mean they consider you are not responsible! If so, continue to deny liability.

(Your insurer would "fight" your case for you)

scotgirl

Hubby spoke to the insurance and the insurance legal advice line and both said we are not covered. The legal advice line said it was 'an act of god' and as such the homeowner has no liability and his vehicle insurance should cover it.

Am gonna get one of those 'we do not accept liability' signs for the driveway!

Quentin

When they say you aren't covered, they really mean you aren't responsible, and haven't been negligent, and the van man needs to pay his own repairs or use his insurance.

If the van driver persists with his claim against you, just pass it on to your insurer to deal with.

gregd_3

"Act of God"....that old chestnut.

They will be lucky to maintain that stance if the vehicle insurers pursue the cost of the repairs.

scotgirl

I appreciate all your help and advice. :beer:

Quentin

gregd wrote: »

They will be lucky to maintain that stance if the vehicle insurers pursue the cost of the repairs.

No they won't. The third party has to establish negligence!

gregd_3

An act of god is where an event happens which is outside human control where no one can be held responsible.

If the kickboards had not been left where they were (unsecured)then they wouldn't have damaged then van as they wouldn't have blown over.

Its definitely not an act of god.

lisyloo

If the kickboards had not been left where they were (unsecured)then they wouldn't have damaged then van as they wouldn't have blown over.

Genuine question for my ongoing education.
The van driver had a choice where to park and I'm assuming the boards were in full view. Does this come into in at all?
I think we have 1 yes and 1 no.
Any advances?

adouglasmhor

gregd wrote: »

An act of god is where an event happens which is outside human control where no one can be held responsible.

If the kickboards had not been left where they were (unsecured)then they wouldn't have damaged then van as they wouldn't have blown over.

Its definitely not an act of god.

and if Tricky Prïckears the van driver had not chosen to park next to clearly visible objects on someone else’s property which were not secured his van would have been fine. How is the householded responsible for them falling they could even have been made unstable by the van being driven near them?

gregd_3

my view is based on the van driver not touching them. if the van driver did then that makes a big difference but original post refers to them being blown over.