Fire - not my fault at premises below

Smithcom

Torry_Quine said:

As Aretnap says unless the fire was caused by negligence then you've no claim. All you can do do is wait and see what the result of the investigation is.

That's not all they can do.

They could contact the business owner's insurance company and tell them that they intend to claim for their losses. See what the insurance company says.

They could ask for interim payments to help cover costs, before a full settlement.

It's worth asking, they can only say no.

 Fair comment, but will not work (they will say no) unless and until the cause of the fire is known.

This will be a Public Liability claim, which will only be considered if the premises below are legally liable for causing the fire.

There's almost certainly a journey to be had before any payment from the premises below is likely/possible

There's more chance of appealing to the Landlord's better nature for some assistance.  Also unlikely.

SC

Bubble2020

Thank you everyone for taking time to reply. I thought that like car insurance, if I crash and damage someone else's car, I pay for it. So if someone causes a fire and destroys my items/goods then they pay for it.

I now know to my cost that I will need to maybe put this down experience.

Ironically it's the first time I have EVER not had insurance. When I owned a house I always had insurance. Sure you live and learn.

TadleyBaggie

Bubble2020 said:

I thought that like car insurance, if I crash and damage someone else's car, I pay for it. So if someone causes a fire and destroys my items/goods then they pay for it.

In the case of car insurance if you crash and damage someone else's car, if you were negligent then indeed you (or rather your insurance company) will pay. However in this case unless the other party has been negligent, they have no liability. That is why you should have your own insurance cover.

user1977

Bubble2020 said:

I thought that like car insurance, if I crash and damage someone else's car, I pay for it. So if someone causes a fire and destroys my items/goods then they pay for it.

Yes, if somebody causes a fire they are liable. But at the moment you don’t know who or what caused the fire.

Aretnap

Bubble2020 said:

Thank you everyone for taking time to reply. I thought that like car insurance, if I crash and damage someone else's car, I pay for it. So if someone causes a fire and destroys my items/goods then they pay for it.

Even with car insurance is not quite as simple as that. Liability in a car accident goes with negligence as well. To claim for your damage from another driver, or his insurer, you still have to be able to show how and why a more careful driver would have avoided the accident.

The difference is that at least 99% of car accidents are caused by negligence on the part of one or more driver's, and it is easy to identify the negligence in most cases. A more careful driver would have paid more attention to the road ahead, or taken the bend more slowly, or waited for a bigger gap before pulling out the of the side street etc. However there are still a few accidents for which nobody can be held to blame. If someone drives into your car after having a heart attack at the wheel, and he had no history of heart problems or any reason to think that he shouldn't be driving, then his insurance will not pay for the damage to your car, because no realistic amount of extra care on his part would have prevented the accident.

And by the same token, if your car caught fire while it was parked, and the fire spread to the car that was parked next to it, the owner of the other car would not automatically be able to claim from your car insurance. It would depend on what caused the fire, and whether you could reasonably have been expected to have done something about it. He can't just say "a more careful driver would have owned a car that didn't catch fire". He has to be able to point to a concrete error or omission on your part.

Whereas most things that you could claim for on your home insurance - floods, storms, subsidence and even many (most?) fires* are not the result of demonstrable negligence on the part of another person. So in a home insurance context being able to claim from another person's insurance if you don't have your own is very much the exception, not the rule.

*The other big one would be burglary. In theory if you were burgled and didn't have insurance you could try to claim your costs from the burglar, but (a) you won't find him (b) even if you do find him he won't be able to pay you as he's already traded your TV for skag and (c) he certainly won't have insurance that would pay for his burgling if he can't.

Smithcom

Bubble2020 said:

Thank you everyone for taking time to reply. I thought that like car insurance, if I crash and damage someone else's car, I pay for it. So if someone causes a fire and destroys my items/goods then they pay for it.

I now know to my cost that I will need to maybe put this down experience.

Ironically it's the first time I have EVER not had insurance. When I owned a house I always had insurance. Sure you live and learn.

 Agreed.  And if/when the cause of fire is established as a legal tort (i.e negligence etc), you will be able to claim your loss from the appropriate party.

The UK's liability system is not a 'no fault' liability system. Fault normally has to be established.

In the same way that:

1.  if you were driving your car, and flicked up a stone into the eye of pedestrian, you are unlikely to be liable, even though you caused the injury.   Negligence has to be established.

2.  Your car hit another vehicle.  But only because a prankster walking past took off the handbrake.   You are unlikely to be liable, even though your car caused the damage.   Negligence has to be established.

3.  Your car hit another vehicle.   But only because you were pushed into it by another vehicle.   You are unlikely to be liable, even though your car caused the damage.   Negligence has to be established against you.   

I could go on, but I'm sure that you get the picture.   Under UK law, liability only attaches if a tortious act (usually negligence) has been committed by someone.   In the absence of a tortious act, there is no (negligent) party to sue and you will have to reply on your own insurances/funds.

Your comments suggest that you know that the premises below were negligent.  If that is, indeed, the case, you should take appropriate legal action.  Otherwise, you will need to investigate the cause of the fire, and make up your mind as to whether there is a potential route of recovery against the tenant downstairs or landlord, and then decide what action to take.

Good luck 

SC

Smithcom

OP - If/when you apply for Household Insurance in the future, please be sure to disclose this loss (assuming that the question asks about......'any claims or losses....'

SC

Bubble2020

Thanks everyone for the explanations. I now understand it better. I appreciate the time everyone took to respond.

Cheers

Smithcom

Good luck.   Hope you make some progress.    

If it was me, I would make some discrete enquiries about the cause of the fire.  If it was an electrical fault, your chance of recovery may be low.    If it was the downstairs tenant letting off celebration fireworks, you may have good chance.

That should be your starting place

All the best

SC

[Deleted User]

Smithcom said:

Bubble2020 said:

Thank you everyone for taking time to reply. I thought that like car insurance, if I crash and damage someone else's car, I pay for it. So if someone causes a fire and destroys my items/goods then they pay for it.

I now know to my cost that I will need to maybe put this down experience.

Ironically it's the first time I have EVER not had insurance. When I owned a house I always had insurance. Sure you live and learn.

 Agreed.  And if/when the cause of fire is established as a legal tort (i.e negligence etc), you will be able to claim your loss from the appropriate party.

The UK's liability system is not a 'no fault' liability system. Fault normally has to be established.

In the same way that:

1.  if you were driving your car, and flicked up a stone into the eye of pedestrian, you are unlikely to be liable, even though you caused the injury.   Negligence has to be established.

2.  Your car hit another vehicle.  But only because a prankster walking past took off the handbrake.   You are unlikely to be liable, even though your car caused the damage.   Negligence has to be established.

3.  Your car hit another vehicle.   But only because you were pushed into it by another vehicle.   You are unlikely to be liable, even though your car caused the damage.   Negligence has to be established against you.   

I could go on, but I'm sure that you get the picture.   Under UK law, liability only attaches if a tortious act (usually negligence) has been committed by someone.   In the absence of a tortious act, there is no (negligent) party to sue and you will have to reply on your own insurances/funds.

Your comments suggest that you know that the premises below were negligent.  If that is, indeed, the case, you should take appropriate legal action.  Otherwise, you will need to investigate the cause of the fire, and make up your mind as to whether there is a potential route of recovery against the tenant downstairs or landlord, and then decide what action to take.

Good luck 

SC

But if your handbrake fails your insurance will probably be paying out to fix the car that yours rolled into. Even if you maintained the car properly etc.

It's not quite as simple as you suggest with car insurance, but it's a special case. Another example is if you sell a car but don't immediately cancel the insurance, and the buyer crashes it. Your insurance can be claimed against if the buyer doesn't have any, even though you are not liable.