Freeholder not allowing a claim

rs65

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

By "you" they mean anyone mentioned in the schedule. The policy holder is the Freeholder and the schedule says them, the management company all lessees and/or tenants.


This policy notes the interest held by all parties including the Lessee(s), Lessor(s), Owner(s) and Mortgagee(s).

No reason why you can't benefit from the cover then. (the contents/buildings debate is a red herring)

Bantex_2

rs65 wrote: »

No reason why you can't benefit from the cover then. (the contents/buildings debate is a red herring)

So are you saying that if the OP accidentally injured someone whilst out on a bus or driving a car, a claim could be made on the freeholders policy?

agrinnall

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

A ordinary radiator that was installed when the flats were built about 10 years ago attached to the wall with unremarkable brackets i.e no different to any of the others and they did not fall off the wall!


Although the tenants did painting/decorating could they have disturbed it? If so is that relevant?

The reason I asked was to find out whether it was a radiator installed as part of a central heating system or a stand alone wall hung heater. If it's the former then I've never heard of one just falling off the wall. Do you know in what manner it fell off: did the brackets fail, did the wall fail, did the radiator break, or (and this may tie in to your last point) was the radiator incorrectly attached? I'm starting to think this may be something that would be covered by your third party liability insurance, if you have such a thing, rather than anything specifically relating to either buildings or contents. Of course, if the tenants did disturb the radiator fixing then they may be deemed to have contributed to the incident, which could reduce your liability.

smifffy1989

Bantex wrote: »

So are you saying that if the OP accidentally injured someone whilst out on a bus or driving a car, a claim could be made on the freeholders policy?

No, the extent of the cover would be the liability the OP has as a result of being a property owner. In this case it is a third party injury claim.

As I said I would put the claim to the broker again and suggest they pass it on to the insurer as a matter of urgency.

rs65

Bantex wrote: »

So are you saying that if the OP accidentally injured someone whilst out on a bus or driving a car, a claim could be made on the freeholders policy?

No. That would be personal liability, usually covered in a contents policy. Whilst driving a car would be their motor insurance.

This thread is about owners/occupiers liability.

rs65

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

The policy holder is the Freeholder and the schedule says them, the management company all lessees and/or tenants.

I have a slight concern that tenants are also included in the definition. Is there a cross liability clause in the policy?

David_InsDef

rs65 is bang on the money - no reason why you cannot rely on the cover under the policy and also unusual that the tenant is included in the definition.

As an aside, the tenant that is claiming against you has to prove that you were somehow negligent e.g. one of the following:

Either you fitted the radiator incorrectly or knew that it had been fitted incorrectly.
You were aware that there was a possibility the radiator may become detached and didn't take appropriate action.
You've failed to appropriately maintain the property (generally) or you've failed to adequately assess the risks a tenant may face.

If they can't prove one of those (or something similar) they don't have a claim.

Bantex_2

David_InsDef wrote: »

rs65 is bang on the money - no reason why you cannot rely on the cover under the policy and also unusual that the tenant is included in the definition.

As an aside, the tenant that is claiming against you has to prove that you were somehow negligent e.g. one of the following:

Either you fitted the radiator incorrectly or knew that it had been fitted incorrectly.
You were aware that there was a possibility the radiator may become detached and didn't take appropriate action.
You've failed to appropriately maintain the property (generally) or you've failed to adequately assess the risks a tenant may face.

If they can't prove one of those (or something similar) they don't have a claim.

They can still make a claim, just if successful the OP may have to pay if the insurance will not

Still have my doubts. if for example the OPs TV fell on someone, would there be a claim on the freeholder policy?

ChumpusRex

Bantex wrote: »

Still have my doubts. if for example the OPs TV fell on someone, would there be a claim on the freeholder policy?

In the usual case, the freeholder's policy only covers the structure of the building and permanently attached fixtures, and liability relating from it.

The radiator (assuming it is a conventional water filled one) is a permanently attached fixture forming part of the building, so is covered by the policy.

A TV is not.

Mrs_pbradley936

I have another related question. If they are refusing to indemnify this does that mean that they are selling insurance that they know in advance that they will not uphold? Is their insurance unfit for purpose since I have done nothing to jeopardise any claim. I have been paying for a policy via service charges but if the policy is useless why do I have to keep paying?