My insurers intend to recoup costs of my repair from neighbours 13 August 2019 at 5:35PM edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Insurance & Life Assurance 24 replies 2K views

lisyloo

Robin9 wrote: »

Littlerock - I think you are bothering yourself with your neighbours and its not really your concern.

Your property has been damaged and your insurers are picking up the bill. If your insurers can get the costs back from another insurer they will - if they can't then they can't but your are no worse off.

That’s not true though is it.

A fault claim I.e. one that was not recovered is very different to a non-fault claim in terms of the OP claims record and future premiums.
Unfortunately the important factor is not whether it was the OPs fault, but whether the money was recovered or not.

I don’t think the OP can do anything about it, but it’s a genuine question as to what happens to 3rd parties when the policyholder didn’t comply with the Terms and conditions which someone might know.

There is particular legislation to protect third parties in the case of RTAs. In some RTA situations insurers are obliged to pay out to 3rd parties but can then pursue the policyholder.
I don’t know how it works for buildings.

pimento

Isn't one of the standard questions 'is the property in a good state or repair?' when you ask for a quotation for buildings insurance?

paddyandstumpy

lisyloo wrote: »

That’s not true though is it.

A fault claim I.e. one that was not recovered is very different to a non-fault claim in terms of the OP claims record and future premiums.
Unfortunately the important factor is not whether it was the OPs fault, but whether the money was recovered or not.

I don’t think the OP can do anything about it, but it’s a genuine question as to what happens to 3rd parties when the policyholder didn’t comply with the Terms and conditions which someone might know.

There is particular legislation to protect third parties in the case of RTAs. In some RTA situations insurers are obliged to pay out to 3rd parties but can then pursue the policyholder.
I don’t know how it works for buildings.

The concept of fault and non fault doesn't really exist in household insurance, as recoverable claims from third parties make up a fraction of claims received.

There is definitely no legislation like RTA for home insurance.

Aretnap

lisyloo wrote: »

That’s not true though is it.

A fault claim I.e. one that was not recovered is very different to a non-fault claim in terms of the OP claims record and future premiums.
Unfortunately the important factor is not whether it was the OPs fault, but whether the money was recovered or not.

If my house had just burned down the exact amount of next year's insurance premium would rank somewhere about 350th on my list of things to worry about. Any difference it makes is likely to be fairly small, and tiny in the context of what the OP has lost. And in any event whether or not his insurer recovers its outlay from the neighbours is beyond his control - they'll pursue them if they think they have a good chance of success, and they won't if they don't. "Stop worrying about it, unless you're interested in it as an academic question" is probably good advice.

lisyloo

pimento wrote: »

Isn't one of the standard questions 'is the property in a good state or repair?' when you ask for a quotation for buildings insurance?

Yes it is.
The question is does that affect a third party if answered incorrectly.

lisyloo

Aretnap wrote: »

If my house had just burned down the exact amount of next year's insurance premium would rank somewhere about 350th on my list of things to worry about. Any difference it makes is likely to be fairly small, and tiny in the context of what the OP has lost. And in any event whether or not his insurer recovers its outlay from the neighbours is beyond his control - they'll pursue them if they think they have a good chance of success, and they won't if they don’t. "Stop worrying about it, unless you're interested in it as an academic question" is probably good advice.

Agree but I’m interested in the answer out of curiosity.

Begsey

lisyloo wrote: »

Agree but I’m interested in the answer out of curiosity.

For us our claim was likely around 45-50k. The neighbours was around 8k, but not claimed back from our insurer. Can't comment on their premium.
Next years premium for our buildings and contents was double, second year we were back to normal after we had shopped around.
That was a fault claim, not sure a non fault claim would be too different.

littlerock

I am not concerned about next years premium at this stage, but whether or not my insurer will recoup their cost from my neighbours.

From my POV I am much worse off all round. I have just been told for example that the wall is damp behind my kitchen tiles on the party wall and I shall have to have the tiles stripped off, including my lovely hand painted mural. Also it looks like my kitchen units will have to come off the party wall and be replaced and they are not a modern design.

Lots of my stuff is damaged and I am having to deal with lots of tradesmen and stuff like that and we are struggling to find anywhere suitable to move to, for the time being as everyone wants a 12 month lease and the insurers only want to pay for 6 months.

There is no way it seems to sue neighbour for stress, damage to valued possessions etc for causing fire in first place. My insurers might get some redress but I do not get anything for trauma and spoiling of my house and valued belongings and overhead of dealing with everything.

Quentin

Why are you so concerned about whether or not your insurer can get reimbursed?

Your claim has been approved which was your original concern in your other "blog" thread.

Surely you have other issues to deal with now than concern about who eventually foots the bill

As has been explained in your other thread you need to prove negligence to be able to sue for compensation for your trauma (you own insurance should cover the other matters you want to sue for)!

littlerock

I am not concerned in purely practical terms over whether my insurer can get reimbursed. I am concerned over how you prove negligence where the fire is caused by two unbalanced very old people who are incapable of caring for themselves but are left to fend for themselves and cause a fire which impacts other people. Is it the fault of their sons, I doubt it, as above there is no legal liability to look after your parents in English law.

And I was also interested in how, if I wanted to, I could sue for the distress trauma expense loss and extra work load the impact of the fire caused someone like me who has nothing to do with starting it. The insurance company does not pay for that. If they prove negligence would i have a separate case?