Part of tree fallen on car at work

AdrianC

debtdebt wrote: »

Not sure what your point is there? If the third party is liable, their outlay is still £1000.

They either pay the whole £1000 directly to the owner if he paid it himself.

Alternatively they pay £200 as an uninsured loss in the form of the excess to the owner of the vehicle and £800 to the insurer in settlement of their outlay.

The insurer have paid £800 under the terms of their contract with the policyholder. They do not have any grounds to pursue the landowner for those losses.

The only loss that the OP has incurred, and can pursue the landowner for, is their £200 excess.

Warwick_Hunt

AdrianC wrote: »

The insurer have paid £800 under the terms of their contract with the policyholder. They do not have any grounds to pursue the landowner for those losses.

The only loss that the OP has incurred, and can pursue the landowner for, is their £200 excess.

But how is that mitigating your loss?

You have paid £200 and have an at fault claim to declare for five years.


I get what you’re saying now but by that logic if you have insurance for anything and a third party is liable for damage to that property what you are effectively saying is you will only win in court if you sue for the cost of your excess.

AdrianC

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

But how is that mitigating your loss?

You have paid £200 and have an at fault claim to declare for five years.

And if you can prove the costs pertaining to that (you can't, btw), then you can claim for those as uninsured losses, too. Don't forget you still need to declare this incident for five years, even if the landowner's insurance pays...

I get what you’re saying now but by that logic if you have insurance for anything and a third party is liable for damage to that property what you are effectively saying is you will only win in court if you sue for the cost of your excess.

Yup.

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

The insurer have paid £800 under the terms of their contract with the policyholder. They do not have any grounds to pursue the landowner for those losses.

This is completely false. If the OP makes a claim on his insurance then his loss is subrogated to his insurance company under standard policy terms, so his insurers have the right to pursue the at fault party (if there is one) on his behalf. It is exactly the same principle that allows your insurer to recover their outlay from the at fault party (or his insurer) when someone drives into the back of you.

The only loss that the OP has incurred, and can pursue the landowner for, is their £200 excess.

Also false; assuming the landowner is liable (which is unlikely) the OP can pursue him for the full cost of the damage and is not under any obligation to go through his insurers instead. Just as when some muppet drives into the back of you it is quite normal to claim directly from his insurers rather than to claim on your own policy - the principle is the same whether it was a tree or a car that did the damage.

The OP's loss has already occurred and cannot be mitigated by claiming on his own insurance policy; his only obligation with regard to mitigating his loss is now to prevent further losses, eg by getting the scratches repaired promptly rather than leaving them to go rusty and then claiming for a more expensive repair.

OP: in spite of the above your best option now is probably to make a claim on your own insurance policy. If they think there's a case against the landowner (they probably won't, if he's had the tree inspected recently) they'll chase him for the money and if they get it back they'll restore your NCD. Don't hold your breath, however. Alternatively if the claim looks like it would increase you're premium by more than the cost of repair (do some dummy quotes on a comparison site to get an idea) then you're probably best putting it down as one of those things and fixing the damage yourself.

Shaka_Zulu

I don't think a claim like this would have much effect on the future cost of a policy. It is a no fault claim.

Aretnap

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

I don't think a claim like this would have much effect on the future cost of a policy. It is a no fault claim.

It will be treated as a fault claim and result in a reduction in the OP's no claims bonus unless his insurer manages to recover their costs from the landowner - which they are unlikely to be able to do if the landowner can show that he took reasonable care to maintain the trees.

"Fault" in insurance jargon merely refers to the question of whether the insurer was able to recover its costs from an at-fault third party - not the question of whether the policyholder's own conduct was in any way culpable.

phil0000

Small update:

We're hoping to discuss further with the landlord specifically around the concern had hit a human it may have resulted in serious injury/death.

Nobody in the company wants to take the risk of damage to their cars or potentially a branch falling down on them, so parking at the moment is an issue for everyone whilst the trees remain.

Based on the wind speeds yesterday which were reported to be 31 MPH, I don't think that it was an unusual amount of wind by any means.

Thanks guys for all the responses.

martinsurrey

Ebe_Scrooge wrote: »

This, in a nutshell.

what you've said, it sounds like the landowner has been pretty fair. Getting - presumably professional - tree surgeons in to assess the trees and take whatever remedial action is necessary.

You know what they say about the presumption?

Anyone can buy a chainsaw and claim to be a Tree surgeon.

OP if you and your colleagues wish to pursue, you need the following

1) an independent report by a registered tree surgeon on the condition of the tree that fell, you need this soon, so it relates to the trees condition at the time it fell.

(I suggest an Arboricultural Association registered tree surgeon)

they will let you know if the tree was healthy or was obviously diseased.

If it was healthy, its an act of God, no negligence on any party, claim on your insurance.

if not move to 2)

2) get details of the tree surgeon the landlord used. either

a) the landlord hired a cowboy without checking their credentials
b) the landlord hired a reputable firm who dropped a clanger.

in either case the landowner is liable, either though negligent hiring, or negligence by his agents (but in the second case he could sue the reputable firm).

3) legal up.