Roof Tile Incident

[ralphrj]

julian64 said:

There was a somewhat similar episode to this with a chap who parked his 100K Porsche in the middle of a field while camping. The next tent owners awning blew off in the wind and clouted his car.

Similarly in that scenario the car owner thought he took no responsibility in where his car was parked and wanted to sue the awning owner for a Porsche paint job,

I suspect the ending of the two cases will be very similar.

From memory the Porsche owner did win that case. The difference was due to the predictability of the awning blowing away (the wind was so strong the awning owner had left the campsite for a hotel).

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=3&a...

[Tom_C76]

Dr Interceptor said:

austinsmirk said:

really- would you in all likelihood see that developing ?

No, in truth you wouldn't. Whether it was a rusting nail etc, you wouldn't know till it came down.

It just irks though. Incidentally, I called my broker for my own commercial premises, and we are covered for public liability up to £2m, regardless of cause, blame or negligence. If my building damages someone's car, I'm covered.

But their insurer states in their email - "In order for a liability claim to be successful it is required to be proven that our insured have been negligent." So their public liability insurance only stands in cases where they have been negligent.

Seems odd?

Your public liability insurance would indeed pay out _if you were found to be liable_. Regardless of what your broker says, they would wait and press to deny liability as far as they could before making that payment.

Looking at the photo, did the tile come from the verge of the roof or around the solar panel? If the verge I'd think you have very little chance of proving liability. If the solar installation is new and you could prove the damaged tile related to it you may be able to get somewhere.

[Dr Interceptor]

Butter Face said:

£1200 for a bonnet?

£300 in parts, same again for the paint, same again for labour, plus VAT.

[Butter Face]

So £600+ VAT for the labour and paint.

To remove, paint and fit a bonnet?

IMO, that's one damn expensive bodyshop.

[Dr Interceptor]

Tom_C76 said:

Looking at the photo, did the tile come from the verge of the roof or around the solar panel? If the verge I'd think you have very little chance of proving liability. If the solar installation is new and you could prove the damaged tile related to it you may be able to get somewhere.

I think the tile came from under/around the solar panel, certainly there's no other reason to have lead flashing in the middle of the roof.

The panel has been there for 5-6 years from what I understand.

I guess this is one of those take it on the chin things... I probably won't put it through my insurance, the cost with the excess and increased future premiums probably wouldn't be worth it.

[TwistingMyMelon]

Pension fund and commercial property, complete pita , had dealings before with that setup and never straightforward or easy to deal with/

Bad luck OP, nice car & great colour.

I'd just claim off your insurance , not fair, but then lifes not fair and its one of the reasons I dont buy something nice and shiny because I'd get stressed about the knocks and bashes it would get in everyday life.

Thank god that didn't hit anyone, especially elderly or a child. Out of interest what would happen if it did and killed them? Would there be any payout or compensation? (compensation would never replace a loved one obvs)

[TooMany2cvs]

Dr Interceptor said:

£300 in parts, same again for the paint, same again for labour, plus VAT.

£55 "System reset"? For replacing the bonnet? Not got a pyrotechnic pop-up bonnet, has it?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Vipers said:

Why do you have to prove negligence, what if it had been examined the previous day, and still fallen off, what happened to "Wheres there blaime theres a claim",

That's the problem. There is no blame. Nobody did anything wrong.

Vipers said:

What if it had killed someone, would they have to prove negligence?

Next of kin would have to prove negligence if they wanted any compensation.

And as there wasn't any, they would get nothing. Hopefully there would be life insurance in place, which is the equivalent of the OP having comp cover on his car.

[Joe5y]

Dr Interceptor said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Is that all? Have you run it by a bodyshop?

Not sure why you've given such a sarcastic reply,

Have you not heard? He's the new Loon . . .

[julian64]

ralphrj said:

julian64 said:

There was a somewhat similar episode to this with a chap who parked his 100K Porsche in the middle of a field while camping. The next tent owners awning blew off in the wind and clouted his car.

Similarly in that scenario the car owner thought he took no responsibility in where his car was parked and wanted to sue the awning owner for a Porsche paint job,

I suspect the ending of the two cases will be very similar.

From memory the Porsche owner did win that case. The difference was due to the predictability of the awning blowing away (the wind was so strong the awning owner had left the campsite for a hotel).

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=3&a...

If everything taken at face value, yes.

[Snails]

When and where is this happen? Would you be able to show that there weren't any storm conditions that caused the tile to slip, as I would assume that if it wasn't negligence then only cause for the damage would be wind damage.

As a semi-related note, lots of home insurers won't cover damage to roofs caused by wind/rain unless the winds exceed at least 47mph, some use 55mph as the threshold. Most take the stance that below these limits a well maintained roof will not be damaged by the wind.

[berlintaxi]

Butter Face said:

£1200 for a bonnet?

Is it made of Unobtanium?

That seems bonkers.

Seems like a bargain, I have just been quoted £485 for a wing mirror on an Audi A6, christ knows what a VAG product would cost if you bought the parts individually.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Snails said:

When and where is this happen? Would you be able to show that there weren't any storm conditions that caused the tile to slip, as I would assume that if it wasn't negligence then only cause for the damage would be wind damage.

How on Earth have you come to that conclusion. It could have been loosened in an storm the month before, it could have dislodged by a squirrel etc.

The OP has to prove negligence. How is he going to do that?

[dacouch]

Dr Interceptor said:

It just irks though. Incidentally, I called my broker for my own commercial premises, and we are covered for public liability up to £2m, regardless of cause, blame or negligence. If my building damages someone's car, I'm covered.

I doubt that is exactly what your broker told you, however if he did tell you that you need to find a new broker as he does not understand insurance or the law.

This is the typical wording of the liability section of a property policy

"The Insurer will indemnify the Insured against legal liability to pay compensation and claimants’ costs and expenses in respect of accidental

a Injury to any person
b Damage to material property"

The key words are "Legal Liability" which in effect is would you lose the case in a court eg were you liable because you were negligent.

It is not regardless of blame or negligence, it's actually specifically subject to negligence

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Dr Interceptor said:

It just irks though. Incidentally, I called my broker for my own commercial premises, and we are covered for public liability up to £2m, regardless of cause, blame or negligence. If my building damages someone's car, I'm covered.

Get yourself another broker. The one you've got is an idiot who doesn't even understand the policies he/she is selling.

All commercial policies cover your third party legal liability. That's it. It doesn't cover your own particular morals and what you think you are responsible for. If the law says you're liable, they will cover it. If you aren't legally liable, they won't.

The fact that you have a broker who has such little understanding of such a basic commercial insurance cover is very alarming. Get a new broker....now!

[Dr Interceptor]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Get yourself another broker. The one you've got is an idiot who doesn't even understand the policies he/she is selling.

All commercial policies cover your third party legal liability. That's it. It doesn't cover your own particular morals and what you think you are responsible for. If the law says you're liable, they will cover it. If you aren't legally liable, they won't.

The fact that you have a broker who has such little understanding of such a basic commercial insurance cover is very alarming. Get a new broker....now!

Well that's A-Plan insurance, camberley office. I'll check the policy wording tomorrow.

[dacouch]

Dr Interceptor said:

Well that's A-Plan insurance, camberley office. I'll check the policy wording tomorrow.

Enough said.

I strongly recommend you take up Twig's advice as you've confirmed what Twig and I suspected.

[roofer]

The piece of lead looks like a tingle, or slate clip which would of been in place to stop the slate slipping. As this is a result of a previous repair, probably when the heat exchanger was fitted, I'd be more than a little miffed.

If that is a commercial property, it needs an inspection now it's problems have been pointed out to the owners.

[Silent1]

julian64 said:

There was a somewhat similar episode to this with a chap who parked his 100K Porsche in the middle of a field while camping. The next tent owners awning blew off in the wind and clouted his car.

Similarly in that scenario the car owner thought he took no responsibility in where his car was parked and wanted to sue the awning owner for a Porsche paint job,

I suspect the ending of the two cases will be very similar.

Was that at pistonfest?

Eta. Ah no I see that was 2012, PF was '07

[Wacky Racer]

TooMany2cvs said:

How often do you have the roof on your house inspected? Somewhen around "shortly after I notice there's a problem", I'd bet.

Unless you can prove some kind of negligence - that they knew (or should reasonably have known) of a problem, but ignored it - it's your car insurer's problem.

Have to admit, I'm not seeing a requirement for a new bonnet there, either. Or am I missing something?

This.


Have every sympathy for the OP though.