Water Leak from upstairs flat - Whose insurance?

jenje

Quentin, I haven't paid anything yet, nor had any contact with either the neighbour or their insurance company. Only person I've spoken to is one phone call early on with my letting agent who rang me to tell me I owed £x towards an insurance excess, but when I asked for details (which insurer, is the guy downstairs the owner or tenant, when/where/how would it be paid) she knew nothing.) I argued with her that as it was their insurance claim, their excess wasn't my responsibility, but did say that I would give them some money as a goodwill gesture, because they were my neighbours. Whether that was passed on as admitting I was liable, or if they've just deciding that due to the nature of the leak (from a sink with no leak or plumbing problem) it just must've been my fault I don't know.

Have made a point of not speaking to anyone or agreeing to anything until I know where I stand, haven't even acknowledged these emails from the insurance company yet, been too busy stressing, googling, and posting here! Won't do anything without speaking to my own insurer first.

Quentin

jenje wrote: »

.....Have made a point of not speaking to anyone or agreeing to anything......

In your OP you told us:

jenje wrote: »

..... they were expecting me to pay both buildings and contents excesses, which I agreed to.......Finding the money to pay for their contents is going to be hard enough......

You need to renege on this, and let your insurer deal with any claims you get. Don't make any payments to anyone unless advised to by your insurer.

Inform your insurer of the incident and request anyone contacting you about this to put it in writing to your insurer, and not to contact you further.

my_names_dave

I still don't see that this has got anything to do with his contents insurance. There has been an escape of water by accident, which is why people buy insurance in the first place to cover for this eventuality.

I am at a loss as to why the downstairs insurers are writing to the OP, unless they are not fully aware of the situation of the escape of water and are on a fishing expedition.

The OP has not been negligent by leaving the tap on, it is an accident. The fact that the sink does not have an overflow raises an interesting question, but it is not a question the OP needs to concern himself with as it is not his flat!

As far as I am concern the OP should just forward all correspondence to the landlord and point out that his is only liable for £100 as per his agreement.

Dangermac

my_names_dave wrote: »

I still don't see that this has got anything to do with his contents insurance. There has been an escape of water by accident, which is why people buy insurance in the first place to cover for this eventuality.

I am at a loss as to why the downstairs insurers are writing to the OP, unless they are not fully aware of the situation of the escape of water and are on a fishing expedition.

The OP has not been negligent by leaving the tap on, it is an accident. The fact that the sink does not have an overflow raises an interesting question, but it is not a question the OP needs to concern himself with as it is not his flat!

As far as I am concern the OP should just forward all correspondence to the landlord and point out that his is only liable for £100 as per his agreement.

Ignore this post. Most of it is completely incorrect (unless the law of tort {common law} has been re-written since this morning).

The OP has clearly been negligent. Just an accident, but negligence nevertheless.

The OP owes a duty of care to other members of the public.

The landlord owes a duty of care to other members of the public, but I cant see that the landlord has been negligent here (notwithstanding the issue of the lack of overflow).

If the OP has contents insurance, as another poster has mentioned, this should cover liability insurance, and this claim should be referred to them. This policy will (should) pick up liability incurred by the OP in respect of legal liability to other members of the public, in respect of injury/damage.

Quite straight forward really.

DM

lotielot

This has nothing to do with you. Even that you've caused the damage to the downstairs flat, their insurance has to cover it. Just don't worry and don't pay anything.

rs65

lotielot wrote: »

This has nothing to do with you. Even that you've caused the damage to the downstairs flat, their insurance has to cover it. Just don't worry and don't pay anything.

Please read post #15. The OP caused the damage so it has everything to do with them.

Dangermac

lotielot wrote: »

This has nothing to do with you. Even that you've caused the damage to the downstairs flat, their insurance has to cover it. Just don't worry and don't pay anything.

How can the OP not owe a duty of care to other members of the public?

Just because the flat is owned by the landlord and/or they may have their own insurance (protecting their position as a property owner) doesn't mean that the OP doesn't have to show reasonable care to others.

The OP caused damage and will almost certainly be liable.

Simples

Dm

*Scarlett

Whilst the op's actions (leaving a tap running) did cause damage to another property, there is no evidence that he did this on purpose or left the tap running after he knew about it (which would be negligent).

This was an accident and the damaged flat contents below should be covered by their own insurance.

The most the op should have to pay is the £100 b xs to repair his own flat as this is in the contract.

Dangermac

*Scarlett wrote: »

Whilst the op's actions (leaving a tap running) did cause damage to another property, there is no evidence that he did this on purpose or left the tap running after he knew about it (which would be negligent).

This was an accident and the damaged flat contents below should be covered by their own insurance.

The most the op should have to pay is the £100 b xs to repair his own flat as this is in the contract.

Look. This is getting boring.

The OP (like any member of the public) owes a potentially unlimited liability to other members of the public, in respect of damage/injury.

The OP has no contract with downstairs. The occupier of downstairs has had their contents damaged. Downstairs (or their insurer) want to subrogate (recover) their outlay from the negligent party.

Leaving a tap on, would almost certainly fall beneath the standard of care that one member of the public owes to another, therefore the legal test of negligence has almost certainly been established.

Accordingly, the OP is almost certainly liable for damage caused to the downstairs flat.

From what I understand, there is no damage to the landlord's flat, therefore, the question of £100 Excess is pretty irrelevant here.

The liability is the Tenant's, not the Landlords. The landlord appear to have done nothing wrong, therefore, not sure why the landlord would be implictaed.

DM

Dangermac

*Scarlett wrote: »

Whilst the op's actions (leaving a tap running) did cause damage to another property, there is no evidence that he did this on purpose or left the tap running after he knew about it (which would be negligent).

This was an accident and the damaged flat contents below should be covered by their own insurance.

The most the op should have to pay is the £100 b xs to repair his own flat as this is in the contract.

The OP should report this to his Contents insurers who will decide whether liability is owed to downstairs (or downstairs insurers).

A contents policy usually covers liability insurance automatically.

The claim should be reported asap

Ultimately, the experts can then decide, based on the exact circumstances, whether the OP is liable.

I cannot envisage for a second that the OP would not be liable, in the circumstances described.

Some of the 'advice'/commentary etc that has been provided on this thread is so wildly inaccurate. The OP needs to get a professional opinion, and should contact their insurer accordingly, in my opinion.

DM