Insurance claim rejected. Need advice please
Options
Stalemate
Posts: 9 Forumite
My house was flooded last month and as a result of that my house got damaged. The water came from a burst pipe in the next door house.
The owners and insurer of the house next door have accepted liability in writing and based on that my building insurer has started work. Unfortunately, I did not have contents insurance (my mistake). I reached out the insurer of the house next door with my contents claim because the water came from their end but they have rejected my claim. Their reason for rejection is that there was no negligence on the part of the house owner and the pipe burst due to weather conditions (it was quite cold).
Do I have a claim here? Should I retain a solicitor?
Thank you.
The owners and insurer of the house next door have accepted liability in writing and based on that my building insurer has started work. Unfortunately, I did not have contents insurance (my mistake). I reached out the insurer of the house next door with my contents claim because the water came from their end but they have rejected my claim. Their reason for rejection is that there was no negligence on the part of the house owner and the pipe burst due to weather conditions (it was quite cold).
Do I have a claim here? Should I retain a solicitor?
Thank you.
0
Comments
-
Your neighbours assumed because the water came from their side they were at fault. Their insurer have now told them/you? that they were not at fault and not liable.
They could have done little to prevent the burst pipe. Unless you can prove otherwise then ask them to contribute and move on if they say no.Censorship Reigns Supreme in Troll City...0 -
Your neighbour's insurance policy will only cover damage to your property for which he is legally liable - ie damage for which he'd have to pay himself were he not insured. Ultimately his insurance is there to protect them, not to protect you. And your neighbour isn't liable purely because the water came from his property - he's only liable if the damage was the result of negligence on his part. Negligence means failure to take the standard of care that would be expected of a reasonable person (not a perfect person). So to pursue a claim against your neighbour or his insurer you would need to answer the question: what would a reasonable person have done differently to your neighbour that would have prevented the flood?
In the absence of negligence nobody has a liability for anybody else's loss and everyone has to claim on their own insurance (if they have any) or bear the costs themselves - same as if the flood had been caused by extreme rainfall or whatever.
Your neighbour's admission of liability has little legal weight given that presumably he isn't an expert in liability law and hadn't had legal advice. A lot of people wrongly assume that they are liable simply because their property was somehow the source of the problem but in fact the law requires some blameworthy conduct on their part before they're landed with a huge bill for someone else's property - which is actually quite reasonable when you think about it.0 -
The owners and insurer of the house next door have accepted liability in writing and based on that my building insurer has started work...!!!8230;..
To whom were those letters sent?
If you have a letter from next door's insurer accepting liability then you do have grounds for complaint, and should be asking why they have changed their mind!
Presumably they knew from the off the cause of the damage??0 -
Perhaps I should have made it clear earlier - my neighbouring house is used by a bank for archiving documents. The liability was accepted by the Claims department of the bank in writing.
Does that change things?0 -
Not really
It sounds like the liability was wrongly accepted by the owner, and their insurer then (correctly) denied liability when you tried to claim off them for your uninsured losses
Your insurer will be paying for your buildings repairs0 -
But if they've declared themselves liable they've prejudiced their insurer's position. As you have it in writing, I'd push it as hard as you can. You may not win, but you'll be no worse off than you are currently.0
-
But if they've declared themselves liable they've prejudiced their insurer's position. As you have it in writing, I'd push it as hard as you can. You may not win, but you'll be no worse off than you are currently.
Well......they made a mistake and are clearly not liable!
However thery are a Bank so could probably afford to pay out of their own money as they have plenty!!
Definitely nothing to lose by making more noise about this
Local paper may be interested in all this too!0 -
I reached out the insurer of the house next door with my contents claim because the water came from their end but they have rejected my claim.my neighbouring house is used by a bank for archiving documents. The liability was accepted by the Claims department of the bank in writing.
If the claims department of the bank has accepted liability, maybe you should contact them, rather than their insurers.0 -
Thank you, all for you insight and help. I'm definitely planning to make a bit more noise to see where this goes. I contacted the bank's claims department who then forwarded my query to their insurers.
I'm looking at options to hire a no win no fee solicitor. Fingers crossed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards