Home insurance and squatters

Section62

Smalltownhypocrite said:

Keep_pedalling said:

If the people living there were doing so with the permission of the testator then they are not squatters and you will probably have to take them through the courts to get them evicted. This is not something that you should attempt without taking legal advice.

Assuming they did have permission to live there from the testator at some point then they are tenants ( even if they are not paying rent) so you need landlord insurance. 

I already took legal advice, getting insurance and leaving it as an 'unsettled estate' until they move out or die was the advice since we don't have the money to pursue court action. The probate solicitors are the ones that said they are 'squatters' not me.

...

Given the circumstances, if the probate solicitor is calling them squatters then you probably need to consider using a different probate solicitor.

If the will is likely to be contested you really need a solicitor who knows exactly what is required, and isn't prone to making careless errors.

Keep_pedalling

Smalltownhypocrite said:

Keep_pedalling said:

If the people living there were doing so with the permission of the testator then they are not squatters and you will probably have to take them through the courts to get them evicted. This is not something that you should attempt without taking legal advice.

Assuming they did have permission to live there from the testator at some point then they are tenants ( even if they are not paying rent) so you need landlord insurance. 

I already took legal advice, getting insurance and leaving it as an 'unsettled estate' until they move out or die was the advice since we don't have the money to pursue court action. The probate solicitors are the ones that said they are 'squatters' not me.

One of the people living in the house is one of the beneficiaries of the will, another person living in the house was completely disinherited in the will but that apparently brings issues in itself (possibility of them contesting the will which would cost more in court fees) and another is classed as a vulnerable person which apparently makes evictions harder too. 

They had expected to just inherit the house outright as they already lived there but the estate (which is pretty much just the value of the house) was actually left to several beneficiaries not just the one living in the house so the house needs to be sold to settle their share of the inheritance but it can't be sold as the ones in their refuse access, to sell, to pay anything or to move out. 

Probate solicitors are not property specialists and this one clearly knows nothing about property law by describing them as squatters when clearly they are not. 

Are you one of the beneficiaries?

FreeBear

Smalltownhypocrite said:

Keep_pedalling said:

If the people living there were doing so with the permission of the testator then they are not squatters and you will probably have to take them through the courts to get them evicted. This is not something that you should attempt without taking legal advice.

Assuming they did have permission to live there from the testator at some point then they are tenants ( even if they are not paying rent) so you need landlord insurance. 

One of the people living in the house is one of the beneficiaries of the will, another person living in the house was completely disinherited in the will but that apparently brings issues in itself (possibility of them contesting the will which would cost more in court fees)

Be aware that pursuing an Inheritance Act claim is a very expensive undertaking. Whilst there are No-Win-No-Fee solicitors ready & waiting to take on such cases (IF there is a reasonable prospect of winning), they require an up front indemnity insurance payment. That on its own, could quite easily be £10K.

Background - I was facing a possible IA claim just as Ilot-v-Mitson had been won on appeal in the high court. In my case, the claimant had no money, and in my opinion, little chance of success. After exchanging a few letters with his solicitor, things went very quiet until the following Christmas when we received a very rude Xmas card - Guess he got a bill from his solicitor, and it hurt him financially.

user1977

Smalltownhypocrite said:

The only issue is the building requires insurance in case a member of the public is injured apparently as as executor I would apparently be liable.

The estate would be liable. I can't see liability falling on you personally for failing to arrange insurance, if there is in fact no insurance available on reasonable terms. Though it isn't clear what attempts you've made so far - I expect you'll need to contact more specialist insurance brokers rather than the meerkats etc.

doodling

Hi,

user1977 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

The only issue is the building requires insurance in case a member of the public is injured apparently as as executor I would apparently be liable.

The estate would be liable. I can't see liability falling on you personally for failing to arrange insurance, if there is in fact no insurance available on reasonable terms. Though it isn't clear what attempts you've made so far - I expect you'll need to contact more specialist insurance brokers rather than the meerkats etc.

The estate is not a legal person so cannot have liability for anything.  It would the owners i.e. the executor (if there is a will and the exexutor has taken on the role) or the occupier who would be liable for any public injury.

Section62

doodling said:

Hi,

user1977 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

The only issue is the building requires insurance in case a member of the public is injured apparently as as executor I would apparently be liable.

The estate would be liable. I can't see liability falling on you personally for failing to arrange insurance, if there is in fact no insurance available on reasonable terms. Though it isn't clear what attempts you've made so far - I expect you'll need to contact more specialist insurance brokers rather than the meerkats etc.

The estate is not a legal person so cannot have liability for anything.  It would the owners i.e. the executor (if there is a will and the exexutor has taken on the role) or the occupier who would be liable for any public injury.

Why would not being a legal person be a bar for a claim for injury?

AFAIK the only time a claim might be made against an executor in person would be if they personally were at fault for the damage/injury, or if through their action or inaction they caused a loss to the estate (and thus the beneficiaries) that an executor could reasonably take action to avoid. (e.g. by arranging insurance cover)

lincroft1710

doodling said:

Hi,

user1977 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

The only issue is the building requires insurance in case a member of the public is injured apparently as as executor I would apparently be liable.

The estate would be liable. I can't see liability falling on you personally for failing to arrange insurance, if there is in fact no insurance available on reasonable terms. Though it isn't clear what attempts you've made so far - I expect you'll need to contact more specialist insurance brokers rather than the meerkats etc.

The estate is not a legal person so cannot have liability for anything.  It would the owners i.e. the executor (if there is a will and the exexutor has taken on the role) or the occupier who would be liable for any public injury.

@user1977 is a Scottish lawyer so probably knows what they are talking about

doodling

Hi,

Section62 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

user1977 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

The only issue is the building requires insurance in case a member of the public is injured apparently as as executor I would apparently be liable.

The estate would be liable. I can't see liability falling on you personally for failing to arrange insurance, if there is in fact no insurance available on reasonable terms. Though it isn't clear what attempts you've made so far - I expect you'll need to contact more specialist insurance brokers rather than the meerkats etc.

The estate is not a legal person so cannot have liability for anything.  It would the owners i.e. the executor (if there is a will and the exexutor has taken on the role) or the occupier who would be liable for any public injury.

Why would not being a legal person be a bar for a claim for injury?

AFAIK the only time a claim might be made against an executor in person would be if they personally were at fault for the damage/injury, or if through their action or inaction they caused a loss to the estate (and thus the beneficiaries) that an executor could reasonably take action to avoid. (e.g. by arranging insurance cover)

You can only sue legal persons.  That wouldn't be a bar to a claim, but that claim would be addressed to the executor in their role as representative of the estate and (barring there being personal liability for some reason) would be paid from the estate if successful 

My point was that if the OP is the executor then they would still end up having to respond to the claim (which would, at the very least take time, if not money) even if they had no personal liability.

To be honest, unless the OP knows (or could reasonably be expected to know) of a reason why the property would present a hazard to members of the public then public liability insurance probably isn't required (and if they do know then fixing the issue is the answer, not getting insurance!).

Jude57

doodling said:

Hi,

Section62 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

user1977 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

The only issue is the building requires insurance in case a member of the public is injured apparently as as executor I would apparently be liable.

The estate would be liable. I can't see liability falling on you personally for failing to arrange insurance, if there is in fact no insurance available on reasonable terms. Though it isn't clear what attempts you've made so far - I expect you'll need to contact more specialist insurance brokers rather than the meerkats etc.

The estate is not a legal person so cannot have liability for anything.  It would the owners i.e. the executor (if there is a will and the exexutor has taken on the role) or the occupier who would be liable for any public injury.

Why would not being a legal person be a bar for a claim for injury?

AFAIK the only time a claim might be made against an executor in person would be if they personally were at fault for the damage/injury, or if through their action or inaction they caused a loss to the estate (and thus the beneficiaries) that an executor could reasonably take action to avoid. (e.g. by arranging insurance cover)

You can only sue legal persons.  That wouldn't be a bar to a claim, but that claim would be addressed to the executor in their role as representative of the estate and (barring there being personal liability for some reason) would be paid from the estate if successful 

My point was that if the OP is the executor then they would still end up having to respond to the claim (which would, at the very least take time, if not money) even if they had no personal liability.

To be honest, unless the OP knows (or could reasonably be expected to know) of a reason why the property would present a hazard to members of the public then public liability insurance probably isn't required (and if they do know then fixing the issue is the answer, not getting insurance!).

Not strictly true. You can only sue a legal entity, which isn't necessarily an individual person, as can be seen by the number of reports of action against the NHS, Metropolitan Police, GlaxoSmithKlein and many, many more legal entities that are not individual humans.

Section62

doodling said:

Hi,

Section62 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

user1977 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

The only issue is the building requires insurance in case a member of the public is injured apparently as as executor I would apparently be liable.

The estate would be liable. I can't see liability falling on you personally for failing to arrange insurance, if there is in fact no insurance available on reasonable terms. Though it isn't clear what attempts you've made so far - I expect you'll need to contact more specialist insurance brokers rather than the meerkats etc.

The estate is not a legal person so cannot have liability for anything.  It would the owners i.e. the executor (if there is a will and the exexutor has taken on the role) or the occupier who would be liable for any public injury.

Why would not being a legal person be a bar for a claim for injury?

AFAIK the only time a claim might be made against an executor in person would be if they personally were at fault for the damage/injury, or if through their action or inaction they caused a loss to the estate (and thus the beneficiaries) that an executor could reasonably take action to avoid. (e.g. by arranging insurance cover)

You can only sue legal persons.  That wouldn't be a bar to a claim, but that claim would be addressed to the executor in their role as representative of the estate and (barring there being personal liability for some reason) would be paid from the estate if successful 

My point was that if the OP is the executor then they would still end up having to respond to the claim (which would, at the very least take time, if not money) even if they had no personal liability.

To be honest, unless the OP knows (or could reasonably be expected to know) of a reason why the property would present a hazard to members of the public then public liability insurance probably isn't required (and if they do know then fixing the issue is the answer, not getting insurance!).

Are you thinking of the difference between a 'legal person' and a 'natural person'?

There have been some very high profile cases of claims being made against the estates of deceased persons, and there appears tohave been no question about the liability of the estate in those.

The executor(s) would be obliged to deal with claims as a personal representative, but it would be the estate being sued, not the executor in their personal capacity.