Legal liability vs tenant's liability

kielo

Hi,

Being new to the UK, there is a part of UK contents insurances I don't understand.

They seem to offer legal liability and tenant's liability. But doesn't tenant's liability fall under general liability anyway?

For example, Nationwide's contents insurance says:

Legal liability.
We cover your family’s legal liability:
• as occupier of your home and its land
• asindividuals,whereveryouoryourfamily are in the world
• asanemployertoanyofyourfamily’s domestic employees, for example, a carer or nanny.
We agree to pay damages and costs to others which arise from any single event occurring during the insurance period which results in:
• accidental death, disease, illness or accidental physical injury to anyone
• accidental damage to physical property.

The way it's written, it sounds like it could perfectly apply to a tenant's damaging the landlord's property.

So does the fact there is tenant's liability cancel the legal liability part?

I'm asking because I accidentally damaged the wall and the insurance says they can't cover it because the wall is part of the building not content and they don't cover accidental damage to the building (even though I have accidental damage cover.)



Thanks

macman

Yes, you have accidental damage cover for your contents. A wall, internal or external is not contents, it would be covered under the LL or freeholder's building insurance.
If he seeks to recover that cost from you, as he presumably can do under the terms of the lease, then you might have some third-party cover under your policy, but the wall itself is not covered by your own policy.

lisyloo

I would ask your insurer whether it's covered under the legal liability section (refer to the specific page and number) specifically

!!!8226; accidental damage to physical property.

kielo

Thanks for the suggestion.

I tried to do that but they told me this doesn't count as legal liability. I must say I don't really understand why because I damaged someone's property (my landlord's) and am now legally liable to pay to fix it according to my tenancy agreement.

And the policy wording states:

"We agree to pay damages and costs to others which arise from any single event occurring during the insurance period which results in:
• accidental death, disease, illness or accidental physical injury to anyone
• accidental damage to physical property."

FlameCloud

Legal liability would be for where you are liable under law- typically tort for example negligence, nuisance or trespass. Tenants liability would be where you are liable for damage to a property you are renting and would be limited amount contained within your lease.

If it were a genuine accident, then you would not be responsible for the damage under a tort breach, so would typically need to see if you have cover for tenants liability.

kielo

FlameCloud wrote: »

Legal liability would be for where you are liable under law- typically tort for example negligence, nuisance or trespass. Tenants liability would be where you are liable for damage to a property you are renting and would be limited amount contained within your lease.

If it were a genuine accident, then you would not be responsible for the damage under a tort breach, so would typically need to see if you have cover for tenants liability.

I have tenants liability cover but it doesn't cover damage to the wall unfortunately.

I have to say I find the concept of legal liability confusing. It doesn't seem to work the way it does in France or Germany.

Let's say I am using a friend's phone and accidentally drop it and break it. Would a legal liability cover pay?

lisyloo

Legal liability would be for where you are liable under law

I am also confused.
I understand broadly what liability is in the UK

BUT it specifically says

!!!8226; accidental damage to physical property

I think the OP is entitled to a clear and consise answer on why his "accidetal damage to physical property" isn't covered under that specific section.

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

I think the OP is entitled to a clear and consise answer on why his "accidetal damage to physical property" isn't covered under that specific section.

This is a contents insurance policy. Property is not a building in this context. Think personal possessions or belongings.

kielo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

This is a contents insurance policy. Property is not a building in this context. Think personal possessions or belongings.

But that's not written anywhere in the policy wording document. Shouldn't "property" be defined if it's different from the commonly-accepted definition?

antrobus

kielo wrote: »

But that's not written anywhere in the policy wording document. Shouldn't "property" be defined if it's different from the commonly-accepted definition?

You mean that this contents insurance policy should list all those things that meet the 'commonly-accepted definition' of property but are not covered?

Like a car. Or an Airbus A321. It could be a long list.

kielo

antrobus wrote: »

You mean that this contents insurance policy should list all those things that meet the 'commonly-accepted definition' of property but are not covered?

Like a car. Or an Airbus A321. It could be a long list.

No, I just feel that it should be more precise. If it says "damages to property" are covered, it seems logical to me that it would cover "all damages to property."

But I probably just don't understand how the system works here.