Home insurance and squatters

doodling

Hi,

Jude57 said:

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.

Yes, companies (and various other constructs) are legal persons.  Estates are not (being more akin to trusts).

doodling

Hi,

Section62 said:

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.

I'm not contesting the fact that action can be taken against an estate.

The issue for the OP is that any action would be taken against the estate as represented by the OP.  The OP cannot say "that is an action against the estate I can ignore it" because practically they are the estate's representative (unless they can renounce).

The OP won't be at any personal financial risk, except that they may want legal advice if being sued and if the house is the only asset then either they pay personally or do without.

Section62

doodling said:

Hi,

Section62 said:

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.

I'm not contesting the fact that action can be taken against an estate.

In which case it might be helpful if you edited "The estate is not a legal person so cannot have liability for anything." because that is potentially misleading to anyone who reads it in the future.

doodling said:

The issue for the OP is that any action would be taken against the estate as represented by the OP.  The OP cannot say "that is an action against the estate I can ignore it" because practically they are the estate's representative (unless they can renounce).

The OP won't be at any personal financial risk, except that they may want legal advice if being sued and if the house is the only asset then either they pay personally or do without.

Agreed, with the exception that an executor can be at personal financial risk if they fail to do the things they could reasonably be expected to do as an executor.  For example if they negligently or fraudulently disposed of valuable estate assets, or failed to insure the estate against reasonably expected risks.

Grumpy_chap

Smalltownhypocrite said:

I was hoping someone can help. I have for my sins been appointed executor of a property in a nightmare situation. 

The people who lived in the property prior to death have continued to live their and refuse to move out (and have become very aggressive about it). As the estate cannot be sold/settled due to this the house remain in the decedents estates name. 

I have been advised that its very messy case and since they are violent and no cooperative that it would require a court case to evict the 'squatters' which would cost tens of thousand and would have to come out of pocket upfront until the estate is settled when it would then be paid back out of the estates balance but this currently isn't a financial option.

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. I have been informed I need '3rd party liability' but I cannot find anywhere that will insure a house thats not mine, not my main residence, but also not empty as has 'squatters' in it (as its not my property and they aren't co-operative they are not paying rent or classed as tenants). 

I don't need insurance to cover the property needing any work doing or contents or flood damaged etc... JUST the legal cover for risk to any innocent members of the public (and preferably it would be quite cheap as frankly its a very low risk really that the house will randomly blow over onto someone walking by etc...).

Does anyone know how to get insurance like that?

You really need to understand the status of the individuals currently living at the property.
Were these individuals related to the deceased?

Simply not paying rent does not mean they are not Tenants.

"Squatter" is a very specific term in legal sense - are you certain it is the appropriate term to use in this case?  Squatting in residential property is now illegal  https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law

What was the basis that the individuals originally inhabited the property?
Was the habitation if the property only those that are currently in the property, or shared with the deceased?

pinkshoes

It sounds like these are not squatters...

So it's 3 people living there who are named on the will (along with another not living there - is that you?)

I'd seek a different solicitor with a better understanding.

I'd also write to the people in the house saying that the house needs to be sold, the value is likely £xxxxx so they'll get £YYYY from the sale. I'd then say that they need to move out by <date> (2 months time) and if they don't move out then all legal costs associated with their eviction will be deducted from their share of the estate which might leave them with nothing.

Smalltownhypocrite

pinkshoes said:

It sounds like these are not squatters...

So it's 3 people living there who are named on the will (along with another not living there - is that you?)

I'd seek a different solicitor with a better understanding.

I'd also write to the people in the house saying that the house needs to be sold, the value is likely £xxxxx so they'll get £YYYY from the sale. I'd then say that they need to move out by <date> (2 months time) and if they don't move out then all legal costs associated with their eviction will be deducted from their share of the estate which might leave them with nothing.

No, only one person living there is a beneficiary on the will.

 

There's 4 other beneficiaries (not living there - although half are children so wouldn't need it until 18 anyway).

One (living there) was deliberately named and disineritated in the will (but maybe able to dispute it as they have learning difficulties, although someone else would have to launch a dispute as they don't understand).

The other is a non direct distant family member that has stolen stuff from the estate but has no claim to anything (but has buddied up to the other two and convinced them they deserve it all).

One other non direct family member (not living there) was not left anything which stuck everyone as strange as they got along very well with the deceased and helped out a lot. An agreement was made originally (actually at the suggestion of the one that is now causing the issues) to split it to include this person and the disinheritance one. This family member does not expect anything though and is not causing any issues.

Yes I am one of the many beneficiary. Everyone involved however knows whats happening at the stalemate with the one causing issues and no one can afford to pursue court currently.

It was the solicitor who says they are squatters, the house does not belong to them and they are refusing to allow the state to be settled. They would have to be evicted as squatters before the house could be sold according to the legal advice we received. Its all apparently very complex with lots of people involved hence why it would be expensive for a court to sort out.

Keep_pedalling

Smalltownhypocrite said:

pinkshoes said:

It sounds like these are not squatters...

So it's 3 people living there who are named on the will (along with another not living there - is that you?)

I'd seek a different solicitor with a better understanding.

I'd also write to the people in the house saying that the house needs to be sold, the value is likely £xxxxx so they'll get £YYYY from the sale. I'd then say that they need to move out by <date> (2 months time) and if they don't move out then all legal costs associated with their eviction will be deducted from their share of the estate which might leave them with nothing.

No, only one person living there is a beneficiary on the will.

 

There's 4 other beneficiaries (not living there - although half are children so wouldn't need it until 18 anyway).

One (living there) was deliberately named and disineritated in the will (but maybe able to dispute it as they have learning difficulties, although someone else would have to launch a dispute as they don't understand).

The other is a non direct distant family member that has stolen stuff from the estate but has no claim to anything (but has buddied up to the other two and convinced them they deserve it all).

One other non direct family member (not living there) was not left anything which stuck everyone as strange as they got along very well with the deceased and helped out a lot. An agreement was made originally (actually at the suggestion of the one that is now causing the issues) to split it to include this person and the disinheritance one. This family member does not expect anything though and is not causing any issues.

Yes I am one of the many beneficiary. Everyone involved however knows whats happening at the stalemate with the one causing issues and no one can afford to pursue court currently.

It was the solicitor who says they are squatters, the house does not belong to them and they are refusing to allow the state to be settled. They would have to be evicted as squatters before the house could be sold according to the legal advice we received. It’s all apparently very complex with lots of people involved hence why it would be expensive for a court to sort out.

The solicitor is wrong, they are not squatters, not by any legal definition anyway, there were living there with the permission of the testator.

You really have two options, get them evicted and sell the house, for which you will need a property lawyer, or just except the situation and discharge your executor duties by transfering the property to the beneficiaries. 

RHemmings

Are the current occupants of the house legally 'excluded occupiers'? 

I don't want anything I write here to be seen as opinion on the situation. Heaven forbid anyone think it's 'advice'. I'm only asking questions. 

I note this previous thread, which was for a property in England: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6570603/an-update-to-brother-refusing-to-leave-inherited-property   In that case, the OP was told by a lawyer that the relative occupying a house was an excluded occupier. IF that's the case here (I don't know), then that may be relevant.  But, the thread I link here is only semi-relevant as the OP also lived in the house. 

Section62

Smalltownhypocrite said:

...They would have to be evicted as squatters before the house could be sold according to the legal advice we received. Its all apparently very complex with lots of people involved hence why it would be expensive for a court to sort out.

You need to have it clear in your mind - these people (as you've described them) are not squatters.  But if they were squatters then you wouldn't need to go to court to get rid of them.

The legal advice you are getting seems to be from someone who doesn't understand the law.

theartfullodger

They are not squatters as they had permission to be there (clearly - entirely legal).  If new owner or executor wishes to evict them either use courts/tribunal or bribe them.

They have rights, quite rightly.

Which country (eg NI , Wales...) please?