windy tiles (1 Viewer)

[critch]

After all the high winds we have had lately, and a piece in MMM, I enquired from our house insurance if we were covered if a tile blew off, and damaged the MH, they said no. I enquired from our MH insurers CAMC, and was told that we are covered, but it would be treated as a fault claim, as there was no third party to reclaim from, and that it would affect no claim discount, and our premium would probably go up. The guy likened it to someone throwing a brick through the window. So it would seem that these greedy insurers, do treat unforeseen accidents as our fault, seems a bit strange. Does anyone have a policy which gives this cover without the penalties.

 

[DigglyDog]

I would push the home insurance people. You should have third party liability cover, certainly for the bricks and mortar side.
Are they saying that if one of your walls collapsed on somebody, they wouldn't pay against liabilty ? If this is the case change your insurer..

 

[The general]

After all the high winds we have had lately, and a piece in MMM, I enquired from our house insurance if we were covered if a tile blew off, and damaged the MH, they said no. I enquired from our MH insurers CAMC, and was told that we are covered, but it would be treated as a fault claim, as there was no third party to reclaim from, and that it would affect no claim discount, and our premium would probably go up. The guy likened it to someone throwing a brick through the window. So it would seem that these greedy insurers, do treat unforeseen accidents as our fault, seems a bit strange. Does anyone have a policy which gives this cover without the penalties.

I thought about that many a time ?

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

 

[MC 55 FUN]

My late Father had this happen in 1984 to his brand new MK3 Escort - the insurance claim was an excess so he replaced the large dent caused by an errant rooftile in the car's roof with a sunroof, which was cheaper than paying the excess

 

[funflair]

We had our caravan damaged by a pane of glass that blew out of a greenhouse on a CL, their insurance would not cover it as they said it was an "act of God" unless we could prove negligence.

We claimed on our insurance and yes we lost a year of no claims.

I suppose on your own house policy you could admit no negligence and they should pay out for motorhome but then they might come to you personally for being knowingly negligent with you maintenance, can't win.

Martin

 

[deleted-member02]

We had our caravan damaged by a pane of glass that blew out of a greenhouse on a CL, their insurance would not cover it as they said it was an "act of God" unless we could prove negligence.

We claimed on our insurance and yes we lost a year of no claims.

I suppose on your own house policy you could admit no negligence and they should pay out for motorhome but then they might come to you personally for being knowingly negligent with you maintenance, can't win.

Martin

We had a similar claim for tree damage.
It was recorded as an 'at fault' claim, we still have to declare it at renewal time.
The tree's owner was not responsible as they could not have foreseen the incident, with little chance of us proving negligence, it's an 'act of God', unfortunately we had to accept that....

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

 

[Geo]

There may be hope
Insurance Ombudsman's view Here

 

[two]

If the tile is from your own property, then you're not a 'third party'?

 

[Paul and Kate]

I read on the post which is referred to
That as it was there tile that hit there mh there was no third party involvement
If the tile hit the neighbours car then they would pay out

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

 

[pyro]

There may be hope
Insurance Ombudsman's view Here

Very well referenced, Geo, hopefully people will go to that link

 

[critch]

Just to be clear, this dreadful event has not happened, it was just an enquiry in case it does in the future, and to clarify the situation for us.

 

[ambulancekidd]

Act of God was a real beauty that insurance companies dreamt up & got away with for many years. It could be argued that any damage causing incident was "an act of God?" What happened if you were a non believer?

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

 

[two]

Probably an act of the Devil in that case!

 

[DigglyDog]

Probably an act of the Devil in that case!

and of course, He has all the lawyers..

 

[cornish boy]

When parts of our 200 year old chimney stack decided it preferred sitting on the lawn rather than on the roof the house insurance wouldn't pay out on the damage to the chimney as there wasn't a gale recorded at the time of the incident. They did however pay out for the repairs to all the secondary damage such as the broken slates, damage to the gutter, etc.

I presume that they would have also paid for any damage suffered to one of our vehicles if the chimney had fallen in the other direction.

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

 

[critch]

According to our house insurers they wouldn't have paid it would have been up to your vehicle insurers

 

[chaser]

I read on the post which is referred to
That as it was there tile that hit there mh there was no third party involvement
If the tile hit the neighbours car then they would pay out

Likewise if the neighbors tile hit your motor

 

[chaser]

From the insurers point of view if you say had damp in your van you could just throw a tile at it and claim a new panel.

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

 

[ambulancekidd]

Probably an act of the Devil in that case!

You've met my ex wife then.

 

[cornish boy]

According to our house insurers they wouldn't have paid

Having quickly checked it appears that neither would have our insurers!

The following extract from the policy book shows that we were not covered for:

• damage to property belonging to or in the custody or control of you or your domestic staff

Thank you for highlighting it.

 

[TheCaller]

There may be hope
Insurance Ombudsman's view Here

Very well referenced, Geo, hopefully people will go to that link

I may have missed something, but I couldn't see anything in that link that covered the situation that the OP raised.

Storm damage to the house is covered by the buildings insurance.
Storm damage to the M/H is covered by the M/H insurance.

The fact that the tile that left a hole in the roof when it came off, is the same tile that made a hole in the M/H is not really relevant.

Obviously, the reason one would prefer to claim from the buildings insurance is to preserve the NCB on the motor insurance, but that isn't an option.

If a tile blew off a roof & hit someone else's M/H, before they had a claim against the house owner's buildings insurance, they would have to show that the house owner was in some way negligent in allowing the tile to come off. If they were able to prove that (poor maintenance, for example), then not only would they have a successful claim, but the insurers might well look to reduce the payout for the roof repair on the grounds that the owner was partially responsible.

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

 

[pyro]

You don't have to prove negligence to make an insurance claim. The failure of (say) a nail on a roof tile is neither negligence nor an act of God, but it is an insurable event.

The general rule is that it is the injured party who initiates the claim, thus technically the MH owner claims against the insured household

 

[TheCaller]

You don't have to prove negligence to make an insurance claim.

Against a third party? That's useful to know.

The failure of (say) a nail on a roof tile is neither negligence nor an act of God, but it is an insurable event.

Agreed. I would think it classes as accidental damage. Unforeseen & unpredictable. Certainly an insurable event as far as the householder is concerned - his insurer would cough up for the cost of fixing the roof.

So if there is accidental damage to your property that as a consequence, also causes damage to the property of another, liability for that damage falls to you too? As a matter of strict liability, negligence or otherwise notwithstanding?

Hasn't 'Act of God' disappeared from insurance industry parlance these days?

 

[pyro]

It's all down to what is termed "causation", literally the action that gave cause to the damage. In this case, the point of causation was the loss of the slate, an event that (unless neglect could be proved) couldn't possibly be known to the householder (presuming the householder isn't a roofing contractor!) but covered under general risk in his home policy

Without the loose tile, there would be no damage to the M/H, thus liability would rest with the householder, who in turn is covered by his insurance. In theory, the home insurance would carry the liability for all the damage if the M/H weren't insured, and that is how U would tackle this claim. Otherwise each insurance would probably cough up and the M/H insurers would then try to recover from the householder policy. Of course, both policies would then lose their no claims discount.

The term "Act of God" has largely been replaced by the term " unforeseeable circumstances" or the Latin term force majeure - usually naturally arising, such as a hurricane, lightening strike, volcanic eruption or an earthquake. Extreme events that lie outside of human control and cannot be reasonably considered during the underwriting process. Of course they can be included, but at additional cost

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

 

[TheBig1]

just a brief note on this. if a tile blows from your roof and hits next door's car etc do not apologise or otherwise accept liability before speaking to your insurer for permission. accepting the blame is for your insurer alone, otherwise they can try and deny your claim for explicit breach of contract. it is or at least was always part of the contract you accepted when you took out the policy.
this happened when a part of a shop sign hit a car parked outside. the shop owner apologised and promised the car owner the damage would be covered by his insurance. the insurer subsequently denied the claim so the shopholder was left a very big repair bill

 

[Charlie]

After all the high winds we have had lately, and a piece in MMM, I enquired from our house insurance if we were covered if a tile blew off, and damaged the MH, they said no. I enquired from our MH insurers CAMC, and was told that we are covered, but it would be treated as a fault claim, as there was no third party to reclaim from, and that it would affect no claim discount, and our premium would probably go up. The guy likened it to someone throwing a brick through the window. So it would seem that these greedy insurers, do treat unforeseen accidents as our fault, seems a bit strange. Does anyone have a policy which gives this cover without the penalties.

Part of my work role was to carry out insurance inspections.. If a tile hits your MH then it would be your MH insurance you claim from. This as you have been told is a fault claim because your insurers cannot recoup the money from a third party.

One thing we have to report on was and is the condition of the roof. If it has been reasonably maintained and was in good condition pre storm damage the claim would be entertained and you would be paid out. If it were deemed by the inspector or loss adjuster that the roof was in poor condition and in need of repair the claim could and often is rejected.

I'm mentioning this because if you have raised the matter with your insurers you will have informed them that your roof is in need of attention and it could make future claims nigh on imposible.

I used to carry out inspections when the claims adjuster wanted or needed an opinion on the state of the roofs as my company was specially Roofing. Many claims were rejected on the basis that the property is insured providing its been maintained to a reasonable standard. Insurers will not pay for damage when knackered roofs fall apart.

Your vehicle insurers will pay out though.

 

[Charlie]

From the insurers point of view if you say had damp in your van you could just throw a tile at it and claim a new panel.

That would be insurance fraud .

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

 

[Charlie]

I read on the post which is referred to
That as it was there tile that hit there mh there was no third party involvement
If the tile hit the neighbours car then they would pay out

Correct.

 

[pyro]

Part of my work role was to carry out insurance inspections.. If a tile hits your MH then it would be your MH insurance you claim from. This as you have been told is a fault claim because your insurers cannot recoup the money from a third party.

One thing we have to report on was and is the condition of the roof. If it has been reasonably maintained and was in good condition pre storm damage the claim would be entertained and you would be paid out. If it were deemed by the inspector or loss adjuster that the roof was in poor condition and in need of repair the claim could and often is rejected.

I'm mentioning this because if you have raised the matter with your insurers you will have informed them that your roof is in need of attention and it could make future claims nigh on imposible.

I used to carry out inspections when the claims adjuster wanted or needed an opinion on the state of the roofs as my company was specially Roofing. Many claims were rejected on the basis that the property is insured providing its been maintained to a reasonable standard. Insurers will not pay for damage when knackered roofs fall apart.

Your vehicle insurers will pay out though.

That would be on the presumption that your property (the MH) was insured, which may not necessarily be the case.

The liability rests with the householder, whose property caused the damage.

 

[Charlie]

That would be on the presumption that your property (the MH) was insured, which may not necessarily be the case.

The liability rests with the householder, whose property caused the damage.

Yes I acknowledged that above. My understanding is the MH and the property were both belonging to the OP .

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