Car fire (Arson) insurance help please

Aretnap

jimbo6977 said:

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. 

I bet it's something that DFS try to sell you. 

Grumpy_chap

jimbo6977 said:

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

It's no laughing matter.

We recently ordered a sofa plus tub chair from a major High Street retailer, and they do genuinely offer protection insurance.  I am quite certain they would offer a similar protection insurance for an armchair also, so that would be armchair-insurance.

Sandtree

Grumpy_chap said:

jimbo6977 said:

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

It's no laughing matter.

We recently ordered a sofa plus tub chair from a major High Street retailer, and they do genuinely offer protection insurance.  I am quite certain they would offer a similar protection insurance for an armchair also, so that would be armchair-insurance.

But are there experts in armchair-insurance? Feels like a bit too niche and more likely they're also pretty good at sofas and tub chairs insurance too. 

Grumpy_chap

Sandtree said:

But are there experts in armchair-insurance? Feels like a bit too niche and more likely they're also pretty good at sofas and tub chairs insurance too. 

Not to mention, if you are really posh, the chaise-longue-insurance expert
That really would be niche.

molerat

I thought that was the reason for having insurance - to pay out when something unexpected happens to your property.

Not exactly comparable but shows that there has to be an element of culpable failure by the insured party. I remember a local case when a driver had a heart attack and crashed into a lorry killing his 2 visiting foreign passengers, his insurers were held not responsible when the families tried to sue.

Sandtree

molerat said:

I thought that was the reason for having insurance - to pay out when something unexpected happens to your property.

Not exactly comparable but shows that there has to be an element of culpable failure by the insured party. I remember a local case when a driver had a heart attack and crashed into a lorry killing his 2 visiting foreign passengers, his insurers were held not responsible when the families tried to sue.

Unfortunately there is a persistence of incorrect language which in my opinion exacerbates the issue and somewhat demonises insurers.

In the scenario you give the families will have been suing the driver, the driver's insurers will have responded on their behalf. The driver was found not liable and therefore neither the driver nor their insurer have any responsibility.

Avoiding liability on the basis of medical emergency is relatively difficult to do though as many illnesses are not that spontaneous and so an honest driver has to admit to getting behind the wheel when feeling unwell which starts pointing to negligence and therefore liability, particularly if there is a medical history to go with it. 

[Deleted User]

facade said:

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.

The arsonist might pay. If they are convicted it makes the civil claim a lot easier. Depending on if they end up in prison and if they intend to try to "go straight" they might be inclined to pay costs. The insurance company could obtain a CCJ and try to force payment (bailiffs).

The problem is more often that the insurance company can't be bothered to pursue them, leaving the policy holder to do it themselves if they want their money back.

Sandtree

[Deleted User] said:

facade said:

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.

The arsonist might pay. If they are convicted it makes the civil claim a lot easier. Depending on if they end up in prison and if they intend to try to "go straight" they might be inclined to pay costs. The insurance company could obtain a CCJ and try to force payment (bailiffs).

The problem is more often that the insurance company can't be bothered to pursue them, leaving the policy holder to do it themselves if they want their money back.

Losses under £10,000 means small track claim. 

Insurance companies must have qualified legal representation in court which could easily mean £300-400/hr for an associate solicitor which is irrecoverable in the small track. Even if you win, you also have to consider what the prospects of recovery are... there are always exceptions but generally those that go round setting fire to random people's cars don't tend to have masses of surplus cash.

Its not that insurers "can't be bothered", its that economically doesnt make sense for them to do so in the majority of cases. This is particularly true for non-liability insurers who typically have far fewer claims lawyers on staff because the level of litigation is much lower in Home insurance and so more likely to rely on external council 

As a private individual you can self represent which takes out a significant amount of irrecoverable cost, plus is more often about the principle than the economics, however you have to remember to include your insurers outlay in your litigation otherwise it remains a fault claim.