Bellway & Damage from roof tile

AdrianC

Scrootum wrote: »

Why would the buildings insurer have any liabilty?

<looks at own buildings policy>
"Including accidental damage"
"Building Owner's liability : £2m"

I _would_ expect somebody to claim off that if one of my roof tiles hit their car. Wouldn't you?

sinbad182

Think AdrianC needs to have a little read up on how buildings insurance policies work, what they cover and how they are worded.

AdrianC

Scrootum wrote: »

Think you will find the accidental cover is for the building itself

Yes, the buildings themselves are covered for accidental damage. Which I would expect to include severe weather, in the unlikely event it was otherwise excluded.

I would also expect it to include damage caused to a third party's property as a result.

I know for a fact that I'm covered for third party liability to anybody on my property under the policy - and that includes those using the footpath through the garden. I know this because I phoned and asked them before buying the policy - a perfectly bog-standard policy, the cheapest the Meerkats pointed me to.

Under the logic being waved about here, a pedestrian hit by the same tile would be out of luck entirely. Is this really what's being suggested?

AdrianC

Scrootum wrote: »

Exactly "liability" is everthing and has to involve an element of blame. If not there is no liability.

If there was no proof as to the cause of the damage, then there would be no claim. However, there is. The tile is to blame for the damage. The tile is - was - part of the insured building. Ergo, the building is to blame for the damage to a third party. This falls firmly under the third party liability.

But, apart from that - far from storm damage being excluded under some limp "act of god" get-out, it's explicitly listed as being included. Including, explicitly, damage to third parties as a direct result.

So, yes, Sinbad - one of us needs to read up on what's covered. In the specific case of my own building's insurance, the OP's mates car would very definitely be covered. Obviously, we don't have the details for the specific cover obtained by the freeholder here. But since there certainly appears to be a reasonable expectation, if it wasn't covered, it t'were my own car, I'd be looking to recover my costs from the freeholder through the courts if necessary.

There is no way that the OP's mate should be liable for his excess and the ongoing rise in premium caused by a claim.

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, the buildings themselves are covered for accidental damage. Which I would expect to include severe weather, in the unlikely event it was otherwise excluded.

I would also expect it to include damage caused to a third party's property as a result.

I know for a fact that I'm covered for third party liability to anybody on my property under the policy - and that includes those using the footpath through the garden. I know this because I phoned and asked them before buying the policy - a perfectly bog-standard policy, the cheapest the Meerkats pointed me to.

You don't pay for third party liability insurance to protect other people - you pay for it to protect yourself. Your insurer will only pay for things which, were it not for the insurance, you'd have to pay for yourself. The clue is in the word "liability". For reasons which have been gone over ad nauseam, it's unlikely that the building's owner would have to pay in this instance.

Under the logic being waved about here, a pedestrian hit by the same tile would be out of luck entirely. Is this really what's being suggested?

Unless the pedestrian had some sort of personal accident insurance, yes. Is it really so shocking to suggest that you can't demand that someone else pay for every bit of misfortune that might befall you?

There are accidents which are caused by the errors and omissions of other people, and there are accidents whcih are pure bad luck. If you want to be protected against the ones which are pure bad luck, you have to take out insurance of your own against them.

AdrianC

Aretnap wrote: »

You don't pay for third party liability insurance to protect other people - you pay for it to protect yourself.

Indeed you do. To protect yourself from having to pay out of your own pocket.

For reasons which have been gone over ad nauseam, it's unlikely that the building's owner would have to pay in this instance.

So, iyho, I am _incredibly, unfeasibly lucky to have found an insurer at seeming random who explicitly includes cover for this very situation? I'd better buy a lottery ticket, then.

AdrianC

Scrootum wrote: »

You really do have a problem with the word "liability". Your insurer will only pay far damage to anything but the insured property (which has additional accidendent cover) if liability has been shown. In this case there it has not. What is so difficult to understand

Is there any doubt that a tile, removed from the building in question, caused the damage? No, there is not.

Was that tile removed by a storm? Yes, it was.

So - please - explain to me why this would NOT be covered under the terms of my own buildings insurance, which is quite explicit that storm damage is included - both to the building, and to anything damaged by debris from storm damage to the building.

Again, I ask you - is my own insurance very unusual in this?

Why do you believe the insured is liable?

Because my own buildings insurance is explicit that they would pay in these self-same circumstances.

cajef

AdrianC wrote: »

Because my own buildings insurance is explicit that they would pay in these self-same circumstances.

Just ignore Scrootum he will argue black is white just to have the last word.

See here :- http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63987078&postcount=60

cajef

Scrootum wrote: »

At least find a link to a quote or two where I have been shown to be wrong.

I have asked you in a previous thread to provide facts and links to your statements and you never can because they are just your opinions with nothing to back them up, these forums are to help people not just to argue and give unsubstantiated and misinformed rubbish.

FlameCloud

Scrootum wrote: »

Do you have the exact wording of that clause?

If like to see it as well. I've been a chartered loss adjuster for more than ten years and I have yet to see an insurance policy- for any sector, be it marine, property owners, motor, commercial or bi that pays anything other than the legal liability for third party property damage.