Help with some aspects of recovering uninsured losses

EdGasket

Andy_Hamilton wrote: »

Simple, the believe you started it!!

That's complete nonsense. If the insurance thought I started the fire on purpose then they would not have paid out in excess of £70K to repair my own property.

Put a claim in to your neighbour and let them or their insurers deal with it. You are making it much more difficult than it needs to be.

Andy_Hamilton

Your guilty until proven innocent so they try and reduce their outlay when they can. My insurance company were open when they said they simply settle to their policy documents excesses and then claim it back. If fault is not yours you get your excess back then

InsideInsurance

EdGasket wrote: »

Well I'd say if a neighbour damages my property then the neighbour is, in law, responsible and by implication their insurer. That's why motorists need insurance; although accidents happen, whoever caused it is still liable even though it was an accident. That's why house insurance includes public liablity. The OP should claim for all losses from the neighbour who will pass it on to their insurers.

You may say it but you'd be wrong.

Motor is the same, the insurer of the liable party is responsible. So, there is an obligation to prove liability.

In motor collisions it is 99.9% the time that one of the drivers is liable for the accident as they have been negligent (done something a reasonable person wouldnt or failed to do something a reasonable person would do) by failing to leave breaking distance or running a light etc.

There is still the 0.1% of motor collisions where no one is liable - eg a well/ fit person dies of a heart attack at the wheel and crashes into a parked car or in heavily icy/snowy conditions a car that was parked before the freeze slides down the gradient into another parked car. In both cases no one has been negligent and so there is no liability.

With Home claims liability is rarer as more stuff just "happens" when a person isnt in command of the situation. The process is the same, PL is there to cover cases where liability does exist but the proof of liability is generally harder.

As to the person who said they were liable, well you'd have to share the circumstances and why your insurers felt you were negligent to be able to comment on it. Leave a chip pan on the hob and go down the pub for a drinking session and that would cause liability.

FutureGirl

RE the lawn, I would refer the complaint to the FOS on that one if you have already had a final response from the insurers complaint department.

We had this discussion the other day in work, as to whether an artificial lawn would be classed as a content or buildings, however we'd most likely cover it under contents in the garden as it's almost like a carpet for the garden and a carpet it contents. We'd rather do that than say we can't work it out so not covering it!

In home insurance, you would need to claim from your own insurer, your insurer will only re-coup their losses if your insurer can prove negligence against your neighbour, or the manufacturer.

Quentin

EdGasket wrote: »

That's complete nonsense. If the insurance thought I started the fire on purpose then they would not have paid out in excess of £70K to repair my own property.....

Correct.


But there is more to it than you not being an arsonist!

If you are negligent though, your insurer pays your claim as well as any claims from third parties who suffer as a result of your negligence. But in that case uninsured losses would have to be paid for by the innocent third party.





If you have not been negligent then third parties (or their insurers if they are covered) have to swallow any costs they incurred as a result of the incident

Andy_Hamilton

FutureGirl wrote: »

We had this discussion the other day in work, as to whether an artificial lawn would be classed as a content or buildings, however we'd most likely cover it under contents in the garden as it's almost like a carpet for the garden and a carpet it contents. We'd rather do that than say we can't work it out so not covering it!

Thanks for opening my eyes.
My insurance have said it would have been covered by contents insurance if it had been on a roll but since I have installed it then it's not part of their building insurance wording (also no mention of it in any exclusions).

Having thought about it and now thinking of a "floor covering" I hunted out the exact wording for the contents cover for the garden.

"The insurance provided also covers loss or damage to contents outside the home but within the boundaries of the land belonging to your land". There are lost of paragraphs listed but it's just to rule out damage caused by flood. Fire damage is covered.

I'm awaiting the complaints department ringing back but I will put money on the fact they won't help and stick with it not being covered.

It's a great stick to go to the Ombudsman with.

I'll keep you informed.