Car Insurance: Who is liable?

The_Bookman

Two cars parked in a public street. Car 1 catches fire. Fire spreads to Car 2. Car 2's owner is told by Car 1's insurer that because it is no fault of their insured, Car 2's owner must claim from his own insurer.
Is this correct or incorrect? I would be grateful for a simple explanation as to why, in either case - correct or incorrect.
Thanks. 

Car_54

Was the owner/driver of Car 1 negligent?

If yes, there is a valid claim. Most likely not, so no claim.

ToxicWomble

Insurance if for when blame cannot be established or no fault can be apportioned to anyone.
Therefore it is correct

Ditzy_Mitzy

As I understand it, the matter is treated as a single claim against the insurer of the item of property that initially caught fire, assuming said item is insured.  Fire spreads and a burning car has the potential to damage all sorts of property from other cars to garden plants, street furniture and buildings.  This relies on the matter being treated as a single 'fire event', however the majority of fires are single events with a single source of ignition.  One cannot be held responsible for one's own flammable property being set alight by a third party's fire.  The same is true of house fires, for example.  
Car One's insurer would somehow have to prove, if putting forward a case for separate claims, that Car Two caught fire as the result of ignition completely independent to Car One being alight.  That's almost impossible to prove.  The case is weakened further by the fact that most cars will spontaneously combust if exposed to enough heat.  Another car on fire in close proximity is usually enough to do it.  
Addenda: if Car One does not have a valid insurance policy, the owner of Car Two will need to claim via his own policy.  This is, however, par for the course wherever an uninsured car has caused damage to third party property.  Car Two's insurer may also be able to get money back through the MIB to recoup its losses.

ToxicWomble

Ditzy_Mitzy said:
.  The case is weakened further by the fact that most cars will spontaneously combust if exposed to enough heat.  Another car on fire in close proximity is usually enough to do it.  

That wouldn’t be spontaneous 

Most things on the planet will combust if exposed to enough heat

DiddyDavies

I would say that it's correct.
Generally, an insurance company is only liable for damage to a third party of the damage is down to negligence on the part of someone that is covered by them.
This is why if a driver has a sudden loss of consciousness (say from a heart attack)  and has an accident then providing that this was totally unexpected and the driver neither knew or suspected that they were at risk of a heart attack, their insurers don't have to pay out for any third party damage.

A similar example would be a water leak in a flat causing damage to the flat below.
If the leak was sudden and unexpected then the flat owner couldn't have known about it, hence couldn't have done anything to prevent it so they were not negligent and are not liable for the damage to the accommodation below.
If however it could be proven that the leak had been going on for a while and was known about, they would probably be liable for all damage.

AdrianC

The_Bookman said:

Two cars parked in a public street. Car 1 catches fire. Fire spreads to Car 2. Car 2's owner is told by Car 1's insurer that because it is no fault of their insured, Car 2's owner must claim from his own insurer.
Is this correct or incorrect? I would be grateful for a simple explanation as to why, in either case - correct or incorrect.

How about if they were parked in a multi-storey car park?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-46290095

It's a basic tenet of insurance that if somebody is not negligent, they cannot be liable for the losses of other people. If the owner of car 1 was not negligent, then they are not responsible for the losses of the owner of car 2.

If car 2's owner can prove that car 1's owner was negligent - say, the fire was caused by an electrical fault that the owner was aware of and had either ignored or bodged - then car 1's insurer is on the hook. Good luck with that...

Car_54

The simple practical answer is that Car 2's owner should claim from his own insurance.

They will certainly pursue Car 1's insurer if there is a possibility of holding them responsible. That is all in a day's work for them, and they are much better able to do so than the OP. Car 2's owner.

Sandtree

The_Bookman said:

Two cars parked in a public street. Car 1 catches fire. Fire spreads to Car 2. Car 2's owner is told by Car 1's insurer that because it is no fault of their insured, 

So, the principle you are considering is liability. Is car 1 liable for the fact that car 2 ignited or not? 

Liability can stem from a number of different sources... contracts, negligence, trespass etc. In Motor insurance we most frequently look at negligence (the failure to do something a reasonable person would do or to do something a reasonable person wouldnt do). So for example did the owner of car 1 receive a recall notice saying that a fault existed with their car that could risk fire and they ignore it?  Or are both victims of the the negligence of the manufacturer who knew that the car was prone to combustion but sold it anyway?

To be able to claim from car 1's insurance you must be able to demonstrate that the owner of the car was liable in some way. If you accept it was purely "bad luck" or "an act of god" then both car 1 and car 2 have been unlucky and will have to claim off their respective insurances.

Dr_Crypto

Take insurance out of the picture and imagine that you are claiming from the other party in person. Insurance simply steps in to cover an individual's liabilities. 
Under what circumstances could you make a claim against someone else? Most commonly in regards to driving the claims are in negligence. You have to show a number of things - that there was a duty of care (yes), that the other person was negligent (maybe), and that the damage arose from that person's negligent acts and was not too remote and was reasonably forseeable (those of us who have studied this area of law will remember the Wagon Mound). 
Was the other car's owner/driver negligent or was it faulty and caught fire (bad luck)? 

facade

Dr_Crypto said:

You have to show a number of things - that there was a duty of care (yes), that the other person was negligent (maybe), and that the damage arose from that person's negligent acts and was not too remote and was reasonably forseeable (those of us who have studied this area of law will remember the Wagon Mound). 
Was the other car's owner/driver negligent or was it faulty and caught fire (bad luck)? 

So, if car A was one of the several known to set themselves on fire when parked e.g. 2006-2010 BMW, then the act of parking it close enough to damage another car when it did would be negligent.