IS THIS CORRECT ??.....Household Ins. query (1 Viewer)

[davidallan]

:Sad:

The preamble: After recent heavy rains a small piece of cement came LOOSE from one of my ridge tiles....Rolled down the roof and bounced onto my Neighbour's NEW XF Jaguar's Roof :shout:

Only a small piece but managed to have a few slithers on the frosted roof before ending up on his driveway.
Some barely visible scratch marks and minuscule dent. Slither marks Total circa 6" or so.
Total Quotation from the Jaguar repair centre = £1018....:Sad:

I AM NOT QUERYING THE AMMOUNT QUOTED- YET !!

Naturally apologised to neighbour etc. etc. & thought I shall have this covered on my Household insurance.

Organised my roof 'Pointing repairs'..& re-cementing loose bits [ Roof less than 10 yrs old on a 1950's House ]

YES = I CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR THE REMEDIAL ROOFER ..SAY £680 minus £ 350 excess if I wish .

NO = The Ins. coy will not pay out for his damaged Car. THEY WILL ONLY CONSIDER A CLAIM BEING MADE AGAINST THEM IF THE NEIGHBOUR CAN PROVE NEGLIGENCE on MY Part ????? IS THIS NORMAL ?????

NO NEGLIGENCE..Just V/heavy rain 48hrs before + Strong winds. ACT of nature - Yes

THE NEIGHBOUR MUST MAKE A CLAIM THROUGH HIS INS. POLICY against MINE BUT THEY are NOT likely to accept such a claim.

We have never made an Insurance claim and paid out for 45+yrs etc.
QQQQQQQ---
IS THIS THE NORMAL STANCE FOR HOME INS. PROVIDERS TO TAKE ?

ps If therefore a roof tile falls from his Roof and my Motorhome suffers major roof damage he will NOT be liable UNLESS I can prove negligence !!

pps. My knowledge of the Insurance Industry ins & outs = pretty much 0%

FUNSTER INSURANCE EXPERT ADVICE NEEDED......Please :thumb: THANKS :thumb:

 

[Phill D]

wow, i would have thought they would pay up. thats a bit of a shocker

 

[estcres]

My understanding is that if you did not know your roof was faulty then you cannot be held liable, but, if you knew the roof was faulty and did nothing about it, ie did not carry out repairs, then you can be held liable.

A very good friend of mine was taken to court by his neighbour when part of a plum tree fell onto his neighbours shed and damaged it, this happened in a gale.

When it got to court the judge asked the neighbour if he had ever pointed out to my friend that he considered the branch dangerous, he answered No, judge threw it our there and then and awarded my friend costs.

So, if a roof tile fell from your neighbours roof and damaged your motorhome and you had not pointed out to your neighbour that you considered his tiles dangerous, then you will have to pick up the bill. This could prove very expensive.

PS when you apologised you implied that it was your fault. Remember the advice given by your insurance company, never admit liability at the scene as this can be construed as admittance.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[mick noe]

insurance companys are the most slippery bunch of shysters. Anyway of getting out of a claim ...............why do we bother?:Sad:

 

[163phil]

No help I know, but this sounds like typical insurance companies to me - anything to save having to pay out for what they should really have been insuring you for in the first place :Angry:

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Just I case there is a cruel twist of fate I'd go round tomorrow and point out that his roof looks iffy.




Vlad

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[stcyr]

Typical. Seems totally pointless having insurance ...

 

[gasman2008]

When someone (possibly me:Sad reversed our camper into our bungalow, the insurance company paid for the damage to the camper but would not pay for the damage to the bungalow as it is not owned by a third party. The damage to the camper came to about £2,500. If I had known what would happen after I claimed I would have paid for the damage myself. They took the excess £250, then at renewal all of my no claim bonus, they when the car insurance came round both myself as the driver and my wife as the policyholder had to pay higher premiums. The insurance companies are total bas*****s

 

[Ali n Tim]

Makes you wonder why we bother with insurance at all!! it seems that they will wriggle put of paying out somehow!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[JeanLuc]

I believe Estcres has got it pretty much correct. You have insurance to mitigate your loss in the event of a misadventure. If that misadventure was caused by someone else's negligence, then you have a claim against them under the common law of Tort. Hence, an insurer will only pay for damage to a third party if that third party can show that you, the insured, were negligent and that a tortious claim by them is justified. If there was no negligence, then the party suffering the loss must claim on their insurance - that is what it is for.

I am not an insurance expert, but listened to this very issue being discussed on R4 'You and Yours' following the gales of a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Chris]

Don't worry about this. You are insured but as is normal your insurer isn't going to just roll over.

Tell your neighbour what your insurers said and then it's up to him what he does. If he decides to sue you, then you tell your insurers and let them deal with the claim. If neighbour takes it to court then your insurer deals with it. If neighbour shows negligence then the insurers pay up, if he doesn't , they don't.

Your neighbour should approach his insurers ( car or house) and let them deal with your insurance company direct.

They normally sort it out sensibly between themselves.

As I said at the top though - don't worry about it:thumb:

 

[mitzimad]

shysters every one of them how caNn they justify raising our premium due to a non fault accident that was paid in full by the third party, since we run 4 vehicles its a fair sum across them all probably as much as the claim was
we wasnt even driving or in the van at the time of the accident

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[ourcampersbeentrashed]

summer 2012 whilst away on holiday a tree from on of the neighbours that back onto our property fell down. It was a large damson tree.

It damaged a motorvehicle on sorn and the fence that is our responsibility.

Their insurance never paid up even though there was no question of liability.

 

[GJH]

Happily, our experience when our van was smashed was different. Even with three insurance companies and two assessors (habitation and chassis) involved and Christmas/New Year holidays we were paid in full within 6 weeks.

 

[TheCaller]

:Sad:
THEY WILL ONLY CONSIDER A CLAIM BEING MADE AGAINST THEM IF THE NEIGHBOUR CAN PROVE NEGLIGENCE on MY Part ????? IS THIS NORMAL ?????

Yes.

You have an insurance policy that covers your property against accidental damage & against your liability for negligence.

Your neighbour will have (should have) the same.

Your neighbour's car was accidentally damaged by an event that was not your fault. You were not negligent & your neighbour has no claim against you.

You can't insure against moral responsibility or guilty feelings, only legal liabilities. You are not liable for random accidents of nature - only if you can be proved to have failed to maintain the roof to the standard expected of a reasonable & responsible property owner & that you should have anticipated the consequences of that failure.

Insurance companies have a dual or triple duty. Mutual insurers have a duty to their policyholders to pay out a fair sum in the event of an insured loss. They also have a duty to their policyholders NOT to pay out on any claim they are not obliged to, without being too unreasonable. Remember it's your premiums they are spending when they settle claims. Insurers who are not mutual bodies also have the same duty as every other business, which is to provide a return on investment to their shareholders (mostly yours & my pension funds - for what they are worth).

Within those general duties, there will be examples of good & bad practice of course, not to mention general inefficiencies & incompetence. It's very difficult for insurance companies to compete on anything other than price, which drives everything down to the lowest level of service & payout possible.

Harsh maybe, but that's the way it is.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[TheBig1]

Your neighbour should claim for the damage from his insurer as there was no negligence or fault. his insurer may try to claim from yours but i doubt it

a good neighbour would offer to pay his excess as a gesture of goodwill, whilst not accepting blame

personally i would get an independent quote from a local SMART repairer. if this would cost less than the excess offer to pay that... usually about £80 a panel, guaranteed for the life of the vehicle

either way the obligation is upon your neighbour to claim for the damage not you

 

[sedge]

If you are liable AT LAW then insurers would cough up.

If you ain't, then it won't. Simples. You can't claim against yourself under liability covers - think about it - you haven't suffered any loss or damage out of the thing hitting his car, so how can you claim for that damage?

Sadly, it would be the same had it landed on him and killed him.

Don't blame the insurers please - it's the law that you should blame, but actually it's right. Why should you - or your insurer - pay out for summat that ain't your fault?

 

[BobtheBass]

Simple way to look at cases like this is to think "what would I do if I wasn't insured?"You would argue that it wasn't your fault, the storm was out of your control, the roof hadnt been neglected or poorly maintained and how could anyone possibly consider you had anything whatsoever to do with what, in essence was a complete accident. Insurers take pretty much this stance. Whilst you might be covered for your personal negligence, there hasnt been any in this case, and as a previous poster correctly said you cant insure for moral or guilty feelings.

Even to claim for the damage to your house would require at least wind speeds of force 8 or more to have been responsible, and some insurers have increased this requirement to force 10! The original requirement was laid down in a court case (Oddy v. Phoenix I believe) dating back to the 1960s, and also required some form of precipitation to be have taken place as well. A gust of wind on its own doesnt constitute a storm, so the policy doesnt operate!

Despite what people may think, after 40 years working in insurance claims I know there are some super insurance companies out there who will, if you are covered, bend over backwards to help, and there are others, often really well known household names who will do anything to get out of paying claims, even to the extent of "hiding" rotten restrictive clauses in their policies in the hopes no one will spot them. To a certain extent you get what you pay for, and if your premiums have gone down over the years, its only (although there are one or two exceptions) because insurers have cut their cloth so more attractive premiums can be quoted to get new business. In real terms, household premiums are far cheaper than they were 25 years ago, so its not difficult to see how they have managed to do this.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sciac2001]

Insurance is a legalised scam!