Insurance Claim for Items damaged by a 3rd party

Chasmondo

Hi All, 

Looking for some advice, been googling and still cant find a straight answer.

I've been in a situation recently where I needed some work done on my property, as part of that the company doing the work employed a removal and storage company to remove and store some belongings until completion of the work.  Upon return of the items, a significant number were damaged.  Naturally I raised this with my contracted party who in turn took it up as an insurance claim with the 3rd party they had instructed to carry out the removal and storage.

Long story short after a lot of back and forth and dealing with the insurance company direct, I agreed a settlement which covered the cost for replacement of the damaged items.  This settlement was just that the cost of the items, it didn't take into account delivery costs etc. for new items or reimburse me for any time off work or the cost of many phone calls to sort this out.

During this discussions with the insurance company it was not discussed nor agreed that I would return any of the damaged goods to them. As I understood it, this payment was a settlement as compensation of the damage caused.

I'm now being contacted by the storage and removal company direct asking when they can collect the damaged items.....  Now, as I have said, this was never discussed nor agreed and if I am to return these, I would expect them to go to the insurance company and not the storage company and If they wanted them returning they would have stated this already?  I would also expect to be compensated for the full amount including delivery fee's etc if they wanted the goods (large items of furniture) back.  I didnt raise it with the insurance company as I was under the understanding this was a settlement as compensation for the damage.

Am I right in my thinking here?  Do I have grounds to renegotiate the settlement to cover all losses if I do have to return and surely any returns should go to the insurance company and not the company who damaged my items and made the claim?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks

Sandtree

If the settlement was based on the cost of replacing them rather than repairing them then they've been written off and the salvage belongs to the insurer. The insurer will typically sell the salvage and may have various routes for doing so... if the items have no intrinsic value left as scrap then they'll often just tell the claimant to dispose of them.

Your logic isnt correct on damage -v- replace but you are right in saying that you need to confirm whats to happen with the salvage with the insurer... it could be they've sold it to the storage company but you need instruction from them. 

Aylesbury_Duck

Chasmondo said:

Hi All, 

Looking for some advice, been googling and still cant find a straight answer.

I've been in a situation recently where I needed some work done on my property, as part of that the company doing the work employed a removal and storage company to remove and store some belongings until completion of the work.  Upon return of the items, a significant number were damaged.  Naturally I raised this with my contracted party who in turn took it up as an insurance claim with the 3rd party they had instructed to carry out the removal and storage.

Long story short after a lot of back and forth and dealing with the insurance company direct, I agreed a settlement which covered the cost for replacement of the damaged items.  This settlement was just that the cost of the items, it didn't take into account delivery costs etc. for new items or reimburse me for any time off work or the cost of many phone calls to sort this out.

During this discussions with the insurance company it was not discussed nor agreed that I would return any of the damaged goods to them. As I understood it, this payment was a settlement as compensation of the damage caused.

I'm now being contacted by the storage and removal company direct asking when they can collect the damaged items.....  Now, as I have said, this was never discussed nor agreed and if I am to return these, I would expect them to go to the insurance company and not the storage company and If they wanted them returning they would have stated this already?  I would also expect to be compensated for the full amount including delivery fee's etc if they wanted the goods (large items of furniture) back.  I didnt raise it with the insurance company as I was under the understanding this was a settlement as compensation for the damage.

Am I right in my thinking here?  Do I have grounds to renegotiate the settlement to cover all losses if I do have to return and surely any returns should go to the insurance company and not the company who damaged my items and made the claim?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks

I'd have thought they are on solid ground.  You've been reimbursed for the broken items, and it sounds like that was done on a new-for-old basis?  If so, then I would have thought the broken ones are now the property of the removals company or their insurer.  If you expressly wanted to keep them (presumably to do up and/or sell on yourself) then you should have made that clear and it would have probably affected the settlement.  Likewise with any compensation for delivery costs, stress, etc.  Otherwise, you've had betterment - new items to replace used, and the option to keep or sell on the old items.

Without knowing the precise details of your contract or the insurance claim, I can't say which party is entitled to the old items, but I reckon one of them is.

Alderbank

It looks a complex situation to me.

The OP is claiming off the building company he used. The building company are claiming off the subcontractor they hired. The subcontractor is the one with a contract with the insurer. It is likely that not all the claims are the same, e.g. the storage company's insurance contract might only pay a percentage of claims or have a high excess whereas the building company is claiming the full cost from their subcontractor as a contractual term. We don't know any of this.

As _Duck says, without knowing the precise details of the contract or the insurance claim, we can't say who is entitled to what. But I would be uncomfortable about the mover's insurance trying to enforce conditions on the OP with whom they have no contract, if indeed that is what is happening.

Chasmondo

Thank you.

I think that's the challenge as there has been little "proper" communication as its all going through third party channels and the only direct conversation I had with the insurer it wasn't mentioned when we discussed the settlement.  All of the items have been assessed and deemed not repairable.  My concern is I am out of pocket as this was all new furniture and what they have given me to replace doesn't cover any delivery costs for the replacements so I will be out of pocket, not to mention the loss of earnings I am impacted by due to taking time off to deal with this.  I've tried to contact the insurance company, but not sure if they will respond or even speak with me as I am not the policy holder.  

Aylesbury_Duck

Chasmondo said:

Thank you.

I think that's the challenge as there has been little "proper" communication as its all going through third party channels and the only direct conversation I had with the insurer it wasn't mentioned when we discussed the settlement.  All of the items have been assessed and deemed not repairable.  My concern is I am out of pocket as this was all new furniture and what they have given me to replace doesn't cover any delivery costs for the replacements so I will be out of pocket, not to mention the loss of earnings I am impacted by due to taking time off to deal with this.  I've tried to contact the insurance company, but not sure if they will respond or even speak with me as I am not the policy holder.  

Did you provide receipts to prove their newness and value?  How new were they?

Chasmondo

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Without knowing the precise details of your contract or the insurance claim, I can't say which party is entitled to the old items, but I reckon one of them is.

This is also a challenge, as its not my contract or my claim....  its the third parties contract and claim and I have no sight of either.  The details from my side are they were instructed by another third party to remove and store my furniture, when they returned it the majority was significantly damaged. It was independently assessed and deemed non repairable.

Chasmondo

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Chasmondo said:

Thank you.

I think that's the challenge as there has been little "proper" communication as its all going through third party channels and the only direct conversation I had with the insurer it wasn't mentioned when we discussed the settlement.  All of the items have been assessed and deemed not repairable.  My concern is I am out of pocket as this was all new furniture and what they have given me to replace doesn't cover any delivery costs for the replacements so I will be out of pocket, not to mention the loss of earnings I am impacted by due to taking time off to deal with this.  I've tried to contact the insurance company, but not sure if they will respond or even speak with me as I am not the policy holder.  

Did you provide receipts to prove their newness and value?  How new were they?

I am talking weeks old, maybe 6 weeks tops.  All receipts were provided along with photographs.

Aylesbury_Duck

The trouble is, it seems from your account that you agreed the settlement, so from their point of view (whoever they are), you accepted the value and source of the settlement.  How long ago did you receive the final settlement?

Sandtree

Chasmondo said:

Thank you.

I think that's the challenge as there has been little "proper" communication as its all going through third party channels and the only direct conversation I had with the insurer it wasn't mentioned when we discussed the settlement.  All of the items have been assessed and deemed not repairable.  My concern is I am out of pocket as this was all new furniture and what they have given me to replace doesn't cover any delivery costs for the replacements so I will be out of pocket, not to mention the loss of earnings I am impacted by due to taking time off to deal with this.  I've tried to contact the insurance company, but not sure if they will respond or even speak with me as I am not the policy holder.  

What does your contract with the builders say about damages? 

Normally this type of arrangement is on an indemnity basis... ie they have to put you back in the same financial position you were immediately before the incident and so if you had a 1 year old sofa they need to give you what it'd take to buy a 1 year old sofa today not a brand new one. 

By the sounds of it the settlement is based on brand new item values other than not including delivery... its unclear therefore if this was an oversight on your part for having not added the delivery or if they stripped the delivery off to get to an indemnity type figure

Chasmondo

Sandtree said:

Chasmondo said:

Thank you.

I think that's the challenge as there has been little "proper" communication as its all going through third party channels and the only direct conversation I had with the insurer it wasn't mentioned when we discussed the settlement.  All of the items have been assessed and deemed not repairable.  My concern is I am out of pocket as this was all new furniture and what they have given me to replace doesn't cover any delivery costs for the replacements so I will be out of pocket, not to mention the loss of earnings I am impacted by due to taking time off to deal with this.  I've tried to contact the insurance company, but not sure if they will respond or even speak with me as I am not the policy holder.  

What does your contract with the builders say about damages? 

Normally this type of arrangement is on an indemnity basis... ie they have to put you back in the same financial position you were immediately before the incident and so if you had a 1 year old sofa they need to give you what it'd take to buy a 1 year old sofa today not a brand new one. 

By the sounds of it the settlement is based on brand new item values other than not including delivery... its unclear therefore if this was an oversight on your part for having not added the delivery or if they stripped the delivery off to get to an indemnity type figure

It was definitely and oversight on my part, I just didnt think about it with everything that was going on.

My contract is with my housebuilder and they were completing work under their snagging/ 2 year guarantee as part of a new build and they instructed the 3rd parties.

The other challenge I have is some of the items are now no longer available for purchase so cant do a direct replacement and of course there is nothing else the wife likes!

My thinking was as they hadn't mentioned returning the old stuff and the payment was settlement I accepted thinking we could try and find an independent to do the repairs.  If I'd have know otherwise I'd have made sure I covered all of my losses as I had roughly 2 - 2.5 days off work dealing with things.