Car fire (Arson) insurance help please

Jq1975

Hi. We are looking for some help in navigating an insurance claim.

On bonfire night my neighbours car was set on fire.  Somebody in the neighbourhood has confessed to police that they set fire to the car.

The car is now written off and because my neighbour does not have guaranteed courtesy car element to her policy she doesn’t have a car. The policy states that if the car is written off then all access to a courtesy car ends.

There are three third-party claims.

Damage to doors leading into the next door apartment building which myself and my neighbour live in.  (completely separate to us).

Damage to the car parked next to her

Damage to car park of our apartment building, and we still need a specialised cleaning crew to come in and remove the soot and melted debris because of the chemicals left behind after the fire.  General rubble has been swept up and disposed off.

Zenith the underwriter for my neighbours car has told us that the three ‘parties’ affected needed to contact their own insurance companies to arrange The necessary works and that third-party claims will be paid out from My neighbours car insurance.

   The three parties have contacted their insurance companies today to be told that this is not the case. And the claims need to go directly to Zenith otherwise if the three parties proceeded with going through their insurance companies and Zenith don’t pay out then they are liable for “claim“ against their policy, And will therefore impact on their premiums next year.

So three parties potentially are going to be out of pocket because some moronic Demon decided to set fire to a car randomly in our car park.

Having spent over 40 hours dealing with with insurance departments with my neighbour, I wouldn’t believe anything that came out of Zenith.

However insurance policy is pretty straightforward across-the-board . Can anybody help navigate us through this mess. Should The three third-party claims be sent direct to Zenith? Or should The three parties risk proceeding through there in own insurance when there is a possibility it will be processed as a claim.

#Confused. TYIA

facade

My understanding is that Zenith will laugh at and reject all third party claims, as the car owner (their insured party) was not negligent.

The third party claims should be directed at the arsonist, but as they obviously won't pay, the third parties will have to claim from their own insurance.

Grumpy_chap

Any party that suffered loss can claim against the third party cover relating to the car that was "torched". 

Assuming the correct policy details are available to you (Zenith) then you can claim off them directly and avoid a claim on your own policies.

Zenith were probably just trying to offload some of the liability costs.

Sandtree

Grumpy_chap said:

Any party that suffered loss can claim against the third party cover relating to the car that was "torched". 

Assuming the correct policy details are available to you (Zenith) then you can claim off them directly and avoid a claim on your own policies.

Zenith were probably just trying to offload some of the liability costs.

Remembering that an insurer just steps into the shoes of their insured... on what grounds do you think you can sue the neighbour for someone setting their car alight @grumpy_chap? What is their act of negligence? Or what other tort do you think they've committed?

To make a claim from the owner of the car or their insurer you need to prove they are legally liable for the damage caused and based on the story the owner of the car is as much a victim as the rest of you. 

Zenith are probably just not wanting to have a debate with you hence saying to claim off your own insurance as your insurers will understand/accept Zenith's position and then its their problem to explain to you why the losses are irrecoverable.

In theory all parties should be claiming off of the person that admitted setting the fire but unfortunately those that go around torching random cars tends not to be the type of person that can afford to repay for their damages.

Grumpy_chap

Sandtree said:

Remembering that an insurer just steps into the shoes of their insured... on what grounds do you think you can sue the neighbour for someone setting their car alight @grumpy_chap? What is their act of negligence? Or what other tort do you think they've committed?

To make a claim from the owner of the car or their insurer you need to prove they are legally liable for the damage caused and based on the story the owner of the car is as much a victim as the rest of you. 

Thank you @sandtree - you have said the same as @facade albeit phrased differently (and the post by @facade overlapped me typing mine).

You are both correct - I'd thought of this in the context of the car driving into the buildings, but that is quite a different scenario which I can see now.  Sorry to the OP for any confusion or misleading I may have caused.

Aretnap

Jq1975 said:

So three parties potentially are going to be out of pocket because some moronic Demon decided to set fire to a car randomly in our car park.

Four parties surely - or doesn't he neighbour whose car was originally set on fire count?

Unfortunately, life is like this sometimes. In general you (and therefore your insurance company) are only liable for damage to other people's property if the damage is the result of something that you've done wrong. What has the neighbour who owned the car that was torched done wrong that would make it fair to blame him/her for the rest of the damage?

There are a whole list of things that you could claim for on your home or car insurance policy that would be no fault of your own, but would still result in a claim on your policy and increase your premium next year. Like having your home damaged by a storm. Or a flood. Or being burgled. Or having your car damaged by a falling branch, or by wild animals, or for that matter torched by a passing pyromaniac.

Ultimately you can't demand that someone else compensate you for every bit of misfortune that befalls you in life - which is why you insure yourself against all these things. It's annoying that you end up with a slightly higher premium next year as a result of the claim - but it's still a lot better than having your house or car catch fire and not having any insurance at all. (If you had no insurance of your own you would have no comeback against anyone, except possibly the scrote who started the original fire - but good luck getting any money out of him).

I suspect that Sandtree's right that Zenith were simply delegating the job of giving you the bad news to your own insurance company.

jimbo6977

In addition to the above, if a policyholder suffers a loss that might be covered by their policy, they are contractually obliged to inform their insurer, regardless of whether they intend to pursue a claim or not. 

(Of course this is ignored a lot of the time but can result in a "tangled web")

Arklight

OP, you can go after the party that you think caused the problem, and thereby possibly not have a claim against your record. It is much easier; however, to just claim on your own insurance and get them to sort it out.

That's the same for every party and the reason why you have insurance. 

I get your sense of frustration about the arsonist, and you will get all the armchair-insurance experts on here pontificating that A will lead to D through B and C, but all of that is irrelevant (and usually wrong). Just go to your insurers and get them to sort it out. The same with your neighbours.

ontheroad1970

Arklight said:

OP, you can go after the party that you think caused the problem, and thereby possibly not have a claim against your record. It is much easier; however, to just claim on your own insurance and get them to sort it out.

That's the same for every party and the reason why you have insurance. 

I get your sense of frustration about the arsonist, and you will get all the armchair-insurance experts on here pontificating that A will lead to D through B and C, but all of that is irrelevant (and usually wrong). Just go to your insurers and get them to sort it out. The same with your neighbours.

Taking Sandtree at face value, being someone who has worked in insurance claims, I'd take their lead.  You say armchair insurance experts with some disdain, what's your level of expertise in the matter at hand?

Sandtree

Arklight said:

OP, you can go after the party that you think caused the problem, and thereby possibly not have a claim against your record. It is much easier; however, to just claim on your own insurance and get them to sort it out.

That's the same for every party and the reason why you have insurance. 

I get your sense of frustration about the arsonist, and you will get all the armchair-insurance experts on here pontificating that A will lead to D through B and C, but all of that is irrelevant (and usually wrong). Just go to your insurers and get them to sort it out. The same with your neighbours.

Certainly the innocent parties' insurance will sort it out net of their excess and it is ultimately what you pay your insurance for a claim should be logged with the expectation that it is likely to end up being a "fault" claim impacting claims history/NCD etc. 

As I already mentioned, insurers are experienced with making claims against private individuals and know that often the cost of doing so outweighs what you get back from them and so unless there is significant evidence that the person can easily afford the outlay the case is closed fairly lightly.

People can, and do, deal with these matters personally too to avoid the risk to their insurance. As its more a personal thing than a commercial they probably more commonly go to the small claims court over them and so arguably may have a slightly higher success rate but then you can self represent whereas an insurer will always be using an appropriate lawyer who's costs will be unrecoverable.

I'd love to be an armchair expert but unfortunately I'm a dining table chair expert since these WFH times. Its sensible to be cautious about if random people are who they truly say they are, after all I could be a hot-tub insurance expert.

jimbo6977

Arklight said:

OP, you can go after the party that you think caused the problem, and thereby possibly not have a claim against your record. It is much easier; however, to just claim on your own insurance and get them to sort it out.

That's the same for every party and the reason why you have insurance. 

I get your sense of frustration about the arsonist, and you will get all the armchair-insurance experts on here pontificating that A will lead to D through B and C, but all of that is irrelevant (and usually wrong). Just go to your insurers and get them to sort it out. The same with your neighbours.

I am mildly tickled by the idea of armchair-insurance.