Public Liability Insurance Claim - Carpets

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

We had a decorator who unfortunately decided that he wanted to undercoat the carpet with half a litre of paint. This was all amicable in the sense that we had to do the moral support to an upset & embarrassed decorator so it's a bit hard to be cross. We immediately contacted a carpet expert on their behalf but the considered opinion was undercoat cannot be recovered, the cleaning materials would damage the carpet.

He checked and said that he was covered by his public liability insurance (as with many tradesman, they simply noted that they had "full public liability insurance" on their flyers).

Long story short, fairly predictably, the insurers are playing silly billies. The carpet is a bedroom carpet of good quality (80/20) and excellent condition though about 8 years old - the sort of carpet you would expect to have a life of 20 years or more, value is around £800.

The insurers want us to make a contribution of £500(!!!) to replace it as they do not give new for old cover.

We have pointed out:
a) we have no contract with them.
b) We had a fully functional carpet, and now we have a damaged one.
c) We are happy for them to use whatever economical means they wish to replace the carpet (they thought our quote was too high, but it was from the original shop for the same quality carpet).
d) We should not be expected to make any contribution to fix a fault that their client was responsible for.

They are now doing the sulky not replying to our communications for as long as possible routine.

Steps?

1) Notify them that time is of the essence?
2) Threaten them with the small claims court if not settled in entirety? I can't believe that a court would expect anyone to pay for someone else's liability.
3) Insurance ombudsman (tedious and slow) but worth a threat.

bris

It's called betterment, they won't give you full value of an 8 year old carpet to put you in a better position than it was.
Yes it is silly, but they are taking the life you have had out of the carpet into consideration. The only thing you can do is negotiate the depreciation they claim the carpet has had.
Can you get a number to call the claims handler on this case, it's often better to speak direct to the person and thrash out a deal over the phone, perhaps full value on a cheaper carpet, emails are easy to ignore.

arcon5

That's a good offer.

If the carpet does have a 20 year life expectancy, it only has 60% off its life remaining. Based on the value of £800, an offer of £480 would be fair and appropriate.

However, a life expectancy of 20 years could be argued as optimistic bringing the claim down further.

Insurance companies will rarely leave you in a better situation than you was before. You are simply paying to the value of the 8 years use you have had.

InsideInsurance

You are effectively claiming from the tradesman and he is choosing to allow his insurers to deal with it.

As such you are entitled to be indemnified, ie be put back in the same financial position as you were immediately before the accident. So to truly indemnify you they would have to give you and fit another 8 year old carpet of the same quality. Now obviously this isnt going to happen and therefore they could either give you a cash settlement of how much it would cost them to buy a secondhand carpet and get it fitted or alternatively they can arrange for a new carpet to be fitted and you make a contribution towards it for the improved situation it will leave you in (betterment)

Ultimately it is a negotiation, if you feel that it was 8/20 way through its life then based on a linear scale you'd expect your contribution to be £320 however generally you would use a non-linear scale as these things tend to lose their value quickest at the beginning (people will think there is a big difference between a brand new carpet and a 2 year old carpet but less difference between a 17 year old carpet and a 19 year old one)

If you are unable to come to an agreement with them then you may want to check if your Home insurance has Legal Expenses cover as they may be willing to take up the case on your behalf - though they may not agree with you that the offer is unreasonable.

bod1467

Alternatively, if your home insurance has new-for-old cover then maybe consider that?

miniemma

I understand what the insurance company are saying and I know that this is how it works in a policy that is not new for old but surely this should be being dealt with by your decorator?

In my opinion, your decorator should be putting you back in the position you were in before he spilt the paint. It is he who bought the policy so it is he who is underinsured.

Happy to be corrected.

Have you paid him for his work?

paddyrg

Maybe withold the difference of the repair and the insurance payout from his fee - point out to him that you didn't choose his insurers, for instance they may be paying £800 subject to a £300 excess, which your decorator would be liable for anyway.

InsideInsurance

He's not under insured

The OP has an 8 year old carpet. To be put back in the same position they would need to fit another 8 year old carpet.

Finding an 8 year old carpet that the OP likes and is the right size to fit the room is going to be challenging to say the least. Therefore what the insurers are saying is they will buy a brand new carpet but as this puts the OP in a better position than they were before they need to make a contribution towards it.

No matter which insurer in the world (read UK cos other countries laws could be different) he went with they would only ever indemnify the OP as that is the legal requirement.

If the OP was to sue the decorator then again they'd only get the value of an 8 year old carpet plus fitting. To cover that same cost is all the insurer has to do

Equaliser123

arcon5 wrote: »

Insurance companies will rarely leave you in a better situation than you was before.

But being put in the position the OP was in prior to the act causing loss is exactly what the OP is entitled to.

Liability-wise, it has to be remembered that the OP is now a forced purchaser and will be subject to a lot of inconvenience. Allowance should be made of that.

InsideInsurance

If the OP wants to claim inconvenience, telephone calls, mileage for visiting show rooms etc those are all separate heads of claim which they would need to raise in addition to the carpet itself.

arcon5

Equaliser123 wrote: »

But being put in the position the OP was in prior to the act causing loss is exactly what the OP is entitled to.

Yes, that's right. Not a better position than she had before.

Op puts a value of £40/year on the carpet, therefore has £480 value left in the carpet & used £320 of value already - their actions will leave op having used £300 or value and have £500 value remaining - so even with the current offer op is better off.

I'm betting op could negotiate a contribution closer to £600, so even more of a win.