Got flooded, insurers wont pay

Quentin

glentoran99 wrote: »

people saying he should have been insured? who is to say they would pay up if the neighbour insurers wont then why would another?

Because you take out insurance to cover you against the effects of flood/water damage to your own property however it happens.


The neighbour's insurers don't cover damage to properties adjacent! (Unless caused by negligence of their insured)

lisyloo

who is to say they would pay up if the neighbour insurers wont then why would another?

Because it's an entirely different scenario.
The neighbours insurance would only pay out if the neighbour was liable to the 3rd party (in this case the OP).
If the OP had insurance for their own stuff it would pay out under a wider array of circumstances.

It's a bit like car insurance.
A 3rd party will only pay you if THEY were at fault.
Your own comprehensive insurance will also pay out if it's YOUR fault.

The neighbours insurance is there to protect the neighbour for their liabilities. It's not there to protect the OP.

Hope that helps.

lisyloo

BTW - if (and it's a huge IF) the neighbour was liable then the OP is entitled to redress under the law.
Insurance merely provides a mechanism for payment, it doesn't change the law, the liabilities or the OP entitlment.
Obviously it's far easier to get large sums from someone who is insured, but it doesn't change who is liable.

magpiecottage

glentoran99 wrote: »

people saying he should have been insured? who is to say they would pay up if the neighbour insurers wont then why would another?

The point is that a household insurance will insure the policyholder (and usually other members of their household) against defined "perils". If one of those "perils" is that the policyholder's home is flooded then it will pay up - or risk the wrath of the Financial Conduct Authority and Financial Ombudsman Service.

Another "peril" is that something that is your fault causes harm or loss to somebody else and they claim against you. That person is known as a "third party" - the first and second parties are the ones the contract (in this case an insurance policy) is between. If the policy insures the policyholder (or any other defined person) against such a claim then the third party can claim against it.

However, simply making a claim does not mean it would be successful. Ultimately, it would be for a court to decide - but it is the person you are claiming against, not their insurance company that you take to court.

Generally speaking, if an insurance company believes that a court case would be successful, and that if it was successful then its contract with the policyholder would require it to pay the claim on the policyholder's behalf, it would settle the matter for them without it going to court.

In this instance, the OP has no contract with the neighbour's insurer and no rights against the insurer of his own. So, in the absence of evidence that the neighbour is at fault they will not pay out - even if there is flood damage to the neighbour's home for which they have paid.

David_InsDef

dano17439 wrote: »

Having no insurance is a risk. The OP has chosen to take that risk and now it is backfired so he has to accept the consequences. Basic home insurance starts at what £50-£100ish a year? He stated that he has no insurance because of belt tightening, which is a valid point, but I wonder what he has spent £50-£100 in the past year which may of not been as important as home insurance?

Congratulations on having gotten all of your life choices and decisions correct.

Anasyd

I am not sure what the exact cause of it all is, but it sounds like a difficult situation whenever dealing with insurance companies.

iammumtoone

I do feel for the OP as even it they had insurance they would still have to pay out the excess and the fact this happened is nothing to do with them.

lisyloo

I do feel for the OP as even it they had insurance they would still have to pay out the excess and the fact this happened is nothing to do with them.

I sympathise too.
Sometimes things happen that aren't anyone's fault. Given that the damage that can happen to homes can be huge e.g. if they burn down, then it's extremely unwise to go without insurance - in fact the building insurance (not contents) is usually a condition of a mortgage.

Congratulations on having gotten all of your life choices and decisions correct.

If the OP has a mortgage then it's not their choice/decision to go without buildings insurance - it's mandatory.
Contents is of course a seperate matter because the contents belong to the OP and the building might not.

iammumtoone

lisylo raises a good point that it is normally a requirement of a mortgage that you have at least buildings insurance. Unless you own your home outright I would be careful that whatever you do does not land you in trouble with the mortgage company.

eddddy

BarryMarshall wrote: »

I have an appointment with my solicitor this week, but I thought I would ask in here as well.

Presumably, this is a free initial consultation.

If the claim (i.e. the damage/repairs) comes to less than £10,000, it is very unlikely that you would get your solicitors costs back from the neighbours, even if you win.

To be clear, your claim is against your neighbours - not their insurance company. If it ends up in court, you would be suing your neighbours.

(But they may ask their insurance company to deal with it.)

What you need to prove (in a small claims court, if necessary) is that your neighbours were negligent.

TBH - the solicitor will be mainly assessing whether this is a case he/she wants to take on. Unless the claim is for more than £10k (or you are prepared to write off legal fees), I doubt there's anything the solicitor can do for you.