Told neighbor I pay for trampoline damage if I'm responsible, but am I responsible?

girlneedshelp

verityboo wrote: »

If he approaches you directly again about it (perhaps offering to accept a slightly lower figure) I would refer him to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram !

I actually previously asked him hypothetically if he would just take £1000 to settle the issue, but he turned it down. What shocked me the most today was when I asked him to show me the damages on the car again. During our conversation he said that the quote included painting for both sides of the car. I said, "why would they have to paint the sides" when there is no damage there? He said, "in order to perfectly match the new paint on the bonnet" as even identical paint would not look the same next to the paint on the sides, as it has aged since purchase. I just smiled...

unholyangel

girlneedshelp wrote: »

I spoke to my neighbor this afternoon about the damage, and told him what my home insurance said, namely:

1. Claim on his car insurance and they will go after my home insurance for the money owed. or
2. Go to small claims, and the home insurance will take responsibility for the claim and pay out if successful. I gave him my insurance details, policy number, etc.

My neighbor said that he was definitely not going to claim on his car insurance, so that was out. They are going to think through what to do over the weekend. He was pretty angry, saying that this is going to get "ugly." I told him that I would be completely honest about the status of the trampoline if asked, and that I would help them get the necessary forms to file with the county court. He said that this isn't what he wants, as he doesn't actually want to fix the car now, but wants to be compensated for the damage. I'm not sure why he said that, as I was under the impression that the insurance company would pay the judgement to him, and not to an autobody, so I'm a bit puzzled by that. Shouldn't he still be able to pocket the money if successful? That's what I understood anyway...

If he wants to be compensated for the damage, tell him you'll give him the difference in value. Your neighbour is taking the michael. Ignoring liability for a second, he has a duty to take reasonable steps to reduce his loss and not take unreasonable steps to increase his loss. Betterment is only accepted where its an unavoidable consequence so if it could be fixed by pulling the dents perhaps, that could be an argument against the cost of new parts. Does the car have any other marks/dings/scratches?


I do disagree with others on the chances of it being considered an act of god though - as an act of god is extraordinary natural forces which you cannot reasonably expect someone to guard against. But perhaps living in an area of scotland where we regularly get winds in excess of 100mph makes my view slightly biased in that those wind speeds are not extraordinary for us, likewise we've had a lot of trampolines go flying so most people tend to secure them in some way so can be easily guarded against. How easily you can guard against something can be a deciding factor in whether someone was negligent. They don't expect you to do everything remotely possible regardless of cost & work involved as that would set the expectation to perfection. So the question becomes whether it could be reasonably expected of a person to take those steps to prevent the risk.

Imo the answer to that is yes but as I admitted, my view is weighted by my experience of weather here and courts will consider what the weather has been like in that particular area - there was one involving man made lakes (nichols v marsland) which flooded after a freak storm. It was held an act of god but iirc, there were comments made that had it not been a freak storm much greater than anything previously experienced in the decades before (during which time the lakes never flooded), they would have been held liable.

pinkteapot

girlneedshelp wrote: »

I would definitely be willing to settle the issue with him for £650, as that is my home insurance deductable. What shocked me the most today was when I asked him to show me the damages on the car again. During our conversation he said that the quote included painting for both sides of the car. I said, "why would they have to paint the sides" when there is no damage there? He said, "in order to perfectly match the new paint on the bonnet" as even identical paint would not look the same next to the paint on the sides, as it has aged since purchase. I just smiled...

Agree with the others that it's time to stick to your guns on him claiming on his car insurance.

The bit above is nonsense. I had an accident last year - scraped along one side of my car. Every panel along that side was replaced, but none of the others (bonnet/roof/other side). The job was flawless - you couldn't tell in any light what had happened. The car was six years old at the time. A good bodyshop can replace individual panels without it being visible (a bad one can't - I have had cheap nasty jobs done in the past where you could spot it).

But, as you said, he's just after cash anyway. If it's done through insurance he's unlikely to see the money. Our insurer assigned us to their choice of bodyshop. We paid our excess to the bodyshop when we picked the car up and they billed the insurer for the rest. Total bill was about £1,700. :eek:

I'd do your best to avoid engaging and if he does collar you, just say you haven't got the money but you have liability insurance so his car insurer can try to recoup their costs. It'll be a non-fault incident which will have considerably less impact on his premiums than a fault one.

jlemaitre

You really should pay out. Don't expect him to 'pay for your ignorance', By expecting him to go through his insurance.

I know for a fact if the car was mine that was damaged i'd pursue you for all total costs of repair to the car. As a neighbour, I'd find the lack off paying out from the party involved a big issue and living next to said neighbour a problem.

I do agree with others he needs to get more than one quote for the repairs. You should be giving him money for his time and fuel for getting these quotes too.

Also I doubt it'll need new panels, Panel beating is done very well these days, Can you post some pics of said damage of the car?

As reference for you(OP) I hit a stag 2 years ago while driving one of my classic car, The stags horns dented my bonnet very badly, smashed the o/s headlight/indicator and caused stress cracks in the front bumper and some scratches to the o/s wing. The total cost was just shy off £3,000 worth of damage. no panels or bumper was replaced, the metalwork on old cars is a lot thicker than new cars too, So paintless dent removal/dent removal can be done very well.

Tell him you want to get your own dent removal/bodywork man out during a time that suits him to quote the repair.

Work together with him, not against him. Accept he's angry but don't let it put you off.

Stand your ground on getting it repaired to how it was, Its your responsibility to get it repaired. Tell him to give you a chance in the matter.

If he wants to take you to a small claims court let him, But remember it'll be the last resort and likely to damage any relationship you have with him as a neighbour. At the end of the day you'll see him very often, You don't really want a 'neighbour from hell' situation.

girlneedshelp

jlemaitre wrote: »

You really should pay out.

I don't have £2400, but I've paid for home insurance, so I'm going to use it. I don't think that's immoral. He doesn't have to claim through his own auto insurance (although his policy probably requires him to tell them about this incident), but if he wants to be paid out by my home insurance, my liability needs to be legally established.

arcon5

If you pay for the damage then pay the body shop directly as it sounds like he's trying to rob you blind.
If he wants a cash settlement then I'd be offering nothing more than token amounts in full and final settlement, couple hundred quid.
And in any case have the agreement in writing!

It won't get messy for you. For him it might. You just pass on all correspondence to your insurer. Simples. If your insurers are handling it then there is really no need for you to discuss it any further with him directly. He can discuss/dispute any claim with them directly. If he doesn't get what he wants from them then tough, he can file a court claim against you and again, your insurer will handle everything.

arcon5

Also unless home insurance is different, you won't pay an excess will You? Isn't it only payable if you make a claim for your possessions... in this case a third party is making a claim against you for their own property. So you shouldn't pay a deductible for a third party claim...

Warwick_Hunt

arcon5 wrote: »

If you pay for the damage then pay the body shop directly as it sounds like he's trying to rob you blind.
If he wants a cash settlement then I'd be offering nothing more than token amounts in full and final settlement, couple hundred quid.
And in any case have the agreement in writing!

It won't get messy for you. For him it might. You just pass on all correspondence to your insurer. Simples. If your insurers are handling it then there is really no need for you to discuss it any further with him directly. He can discuss/dispute any claim with them directly. If he doesn't get what he wants from them then tough, he can file a court claim against you and again, your insurer will handle everything.

If you read the thread you'd know they aren't until liability is established.

girlneedshelp

arcon5 wrote: »

Also unless home insurance is different, you won't pay an excess will You? Isn't it only payable if you make a claim for your possessions... in this case a third party is making a claim against you for their own property. So you shouldn't pay a deductible for a third party claim...

Wow... I didn't realize that. I'm going to read through my policy again. I just simply assumed that the deductable would apply to a third party claim too. I've never had a claim on my car or house insurance in my life, so I'm learning, learning, learning with each post that I read. Thanks agin.

Joshua_Nkomo

I do not understand why your home insurer is messing around here they can talk to you and then make up their mind.

If I was your neighbour I wouldn't be messing about with the smalls claims court I would be straight to a solicitor and that could double or triple the claim.