Fire Damage from next door

Zorillo

That exclusion specifically relates to the Home Emergency section.

EdGasketTheSecond

So what is the difference between a wilful act and a negligent act? There must surely be a lot of overlap if the insured claims something wasn't deliberate? Accidental is a lot more clear cut.


Anyway in my case I was not negligent or deliberate but we had a fire and neighbour claimed on our insurance. End of Story.

Zorillo

A wilful act is deliberate, and a negligent act is careless.

In the context of the Home Emergency section the distinction doesn't matter as both are excluded.

In the context of a Public Liability section, it does matter as the policy might respond to carelessness but it won't respond to deliberate actions.

You haven't described the circumstances of your fire, but clearly your insurer felt you were liable for your neighbours damage, presumably through negligence.

thrifty_pete

How often would an insurer carry out a forensic examination to discover the cause of a fire? How easy would it be to determine whether the cause was due to negligence?
This sounds like another good reason to have home insurance - your insurer can argue it out with the neighbour's insurer.

Aretnap

collectors wrote: »

Hi, just enquiring for a friend,
in that my friends neighbour has had a fire & it has done some damage to her house, "around £450.00 worth". The neighbour was advised that my friend should claim off her own insurance. Is this correct

As above, yes, broadly speaking. The neighbour's insurance isn't there to protect her, it's there to protect the neighbour. So it will only pay for damage to her property if the neighbour is legally liable for it, ie if the neighbour would have to pay for it themselves were they not insured. Generally this means that there has to be some level of fault or blame for the fire on the neighbour's part - the neighbour isn't liable for the damage caused by a fire which wasn't his fault purely because it somehow started in his flat.

& what would happen if my friend had no insurance.

If she had no insurance then, unless she could prove negligence on the part of the neighbour, she'd just have to grin and bear it. Same as if the fire had started in her own flat, or if she'd been burgled, or whatever. Presumably she wouldn't choose to go without insurance unless she felt that all these risks were ones that she was willing and able to take.

This could also affect her premiums on renewal. Surely she shouldn't have to lose out because of somthing that's not her fault.??

Why not? If the fire had been caused by an electrical fault in her own flat that wouldn't be her fault, but it would still mean a claim on her own policy and would likely affect her premiums on renewal. And if her flat was damaged by a storm that wouldn't be her fault, but it would still mean a claim etc etc. And if she was burgled... you get the idea. Most claims that you might make on your home insurance policy are for things that aren't your fault, and you would't expect someone else's insurer to pay for them to make sure that you don't lose out. A fire that happens to start in a neighbour's flat through no (provable) fault of the neighbour is not actually very different.

FlameCloud

thrifty_pete wrote: »

How often would an insurer carry out a forensic examination to discover the cause of a fire? How easy would it be to determine whether the cause was due to negligence?
This sounds like another good reason to have home insurance - your insurer can argue it out with the neighbour's insurer.

Quite often - a general screening survey is not that expensive and will normally be requested by insurers on depending on value - one for example wants them on any claim that will exceed £1,500.

Insco

eddddy wrote: »

You need to re-read my post. I said:



If you want to be pedantic, perhaps I could have said:




If you want something to read on this topic, a quick Google found this. It's not a very 'technical' or forensic, but it gives a general impression:

The Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774, section 86, introduced an exception to the ignis suus principle removing liability from a householder for damage caused by a fire that was started accidentally.