Damage from the wind... repairable?
Discussion
Jimmyarm said:
Have you got proof of maintenance of your roof ? Exactly how often does a tiled roof need to be maintained ?
Yes, actually. As it happens, I do. 
That wasn't the point though. if the neighbour's roof was clearly structurally unsound, it could definitely be argued that he was negligent. Without knowing more details of how the roof failed, it's impossible to know. It's unlikely, but it's far from impossible.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 21st October 21:29
ianwayne said:
What's this twaddle about negligence or bad maintenance? Not necessary.
Buildings Insurance covers 3rd party risk. It's why anyone with a mortgage has to have buildings insurance by law. If he's a landlord he will undoubtedly have it (unless he's a wideboy) to cover against tenants possibly burning it down so the OP should be OK.
Not really....Buildings Insurance covers 3rd party risk. It's why anyone with a mortgage has to have buildings insurance by law. If he's a landlord he will undoubtedly have it (unless he's a wideboy) to cover against tenants possibly burning it down so the OP should be OK.
The insurance will indemnify the neighbour against 3rd party claims that are valid. In this instance it would be via Tort of Negligence, and to be a successful claim their would have to be negligence and loss. Loss is straightforward. A ridge tile taking a leap in very high winds is not necessarily a sign of poor maintenance, more one of those things. It's harsh occasionally, but well enshrined in UK law.
This is why I toured the hotel car park looking for a space not under a tree tonight.
Jimmyarm said:
kambites said:
Yes, actually. As it happens, I do.
and no doubt it states that nothing will blow off in unusual weather conditions and damage other people's property as long as you have the roof professionally inspected at x intervals ?When part of the roof blew off my parents' house, their insurance certainly paid for the damage to the road that it caused.
kambites said:
No of course it doesn't but I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything. The question is whether the householder is liable for third party damage caused by a structural failure of his property. I assume the argument would simply revolve around whether the properly was/is in a reasonable state of repair and if not, whether that contributed to the damage?
When part of the roof blew off my parents' house, their insurance certainly paid for the damage to the road that it caused.
It has everything to do with you suggesting the neighbours insurance will pay for the damage.When part of the roof blew off my parents' house, their insurance certainly paid for the damage to the road that it caused.
Without proof that the roof was unsound prior to the incident, the op has no claim against the neighbour as you quickly point out when questioned.
Out of curiosity, how did the local coucil/highways authority prove your parents were negligent ?
Jimmyarm said:
Out of curiosity, how did the local coucil/highways authority prove your parents were negligent ?
I don't remember that they did. From what I recall, there were no inspections of any type done to the house except those by the insurance company's assessors. ETA: Actually maybe I'm misremembering and it was the retaining wall that was damaged (which was owned by them). It was quite a long time ago now.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 21st October 22:10
Re insurance
1 - unless you can prove roof was in poor condition BEFORE storm then you have no chance of claiming on neighbours insurance.
2 - most home policies will NOT cover for act of God.
3 - Tail end of a hurricane causing the damage will be classed as AoG.
4 - your car insurance will pay out for you so in the event that neighbours policy will site that as a reason not to pay out.
I had damage to my car from Feb storm. I had it repaired locally and didn't bother my insurance company.
1 - unless you can prove roof was in poor condition BEFORE storm then you have no chance of claiming on neighbours insurance.
2 - most home policies will NOT cover for act of God.
3 - Tail end of a hurricane causing the damage will be classed as AoG.
4 - your car insurance will pay out for you so in the event that neighbours policy will site that as a reason not to pay out.
I had damage to my car from Feb storm. I had it repaired locally and didn't bother my insurance company.
shost said:
Re insurance
1 - unless you can prove roof was in poor condition BEFORE storm then you have no chance of claiming on neighbours insurance.
2 - most home policies will NOT cover for act of God.
3 - Tail end of a hurricane causing the damage will be classed as AoG.
4 - your car insurance will pay out for you so in the event that neighbours policy will site that as a reason not to pay out.
I had damage to my car from Feb storm. I had it repaired locally and didn't bother my insurance company.
On number 3. My understanding is that an Act of God is not foreseeable. Given that it's Autumn, so often windy, and that the weather was forecast I don't believe it would classify as an Act of God.1 - unless you can prove roof was in poor condition BEFORE storm then you have no chance of claiming on neighbours insurance.
2 - most home policies will NOT cover for act of God.
3 - Tail end of a hurricane causing the damage will be classed as AoG.
4 - your car insurance will pay out for you so in the event that neighbours policy will site that as a reason not to pay out.
I had damage to my car from Feb storm. I had it repaired locally and didn't bother my insurance company.
I'd love to agree, I do agree but it's how the insurance will see it. The issue of severe weather warnings won't help. If other damage in area is present, fallen trees, fences etc they will point out it is severe exceptional weather. If on the other hand it's the only damage in the postcode then OP may have a chance.
Act of God is an outmoded concept in UK insurance anyway (i.e., it is no longer used to the best of my knowledge).
However the point about insurers only paying liabilities to third parties, rather than third party claims, still stands (unlike the roof).
Seriously, it's not enough to show that the damage was caused by the roof tile, but instead that the neighbour has some personal liability for the damage, against which the insurer can indemnify. This wouldn't necessarily have to be negligence; but that is the most normal tort on which claims such as these would be founded.
However the point about insurers only paying liabilities to third parties, rather than third party claims, still stands (unlike the roof).
Seriously, it's not enough to show that the damage was caused by the roof tile, but instead that the neighbour has some personal liability for the damage, against which the insurer can indemnify. This wouldn't necessarily have to be negligence; but that is the most normal tort on which claims such as these would be founded.
shost said:
Re insurance
1 - unless you can prove roof was in poor condition BEFORE storm then you have no chance of claiming on neighbours insurance.
2 - most home policies will NOT cover for act of God.
3 - Tail end of a hurricane causing the damage will be classed as AoG.
4 - your car insurance will pay out for you so in the event that neighbours policy will site that as a reason not to pay out.
I had damage to my car from Feb storm. I had it repaired locally and didn't bother my insurance company.
Point 3 is irrelevant. It isn't the tail of a Hurricane, it's simply strong wind from a storm system that was once classified as a hurricane. 1 - unless you can prove roof was in poor condition BEFORE storm then you have no chance of claiming on neighbours insurance.
2 - most home policies will NOT cover for act of God.
3 - Tail end of a hurricane causing the damage will be classed as AoG.
4 - your car insurance will pay out for you so in the event that neighbours policy will site that as a reason not to pay out.
I had damage to my car from Feb storm. I had it repaired locally and didn't bother my insurance company.
For everyone arguing about how you prove a roof was defective, the simple fact that bits of it fell off tend to point to the fact that it wasn't exactly in tip top condition...
IforB said:
For everyone arguing about how you prove a roof was defective, the simple fact that bits of it fell off tend to point to the fact that it wasn't exactly in tip top condition...
It hasn't been all that windy and I would say a telling point would be how many other roofs in the area suffered damage.IforB said:
Point 3 is irrelevant. It isn't the tail of a Hurricane, it's simply strong wind from a storm system that was once classified as a hurricane.
For everyone arguing about how you prove a roof was defective, the simple fact that bits of it fell off tend to point to the fact that it wasn't exactly in tip top condition...
The storm that damaged my car was worse than today's. But they have cancelled flights there has been a death. Anyway hope the OP gets a good solution because when I investigated I could only claim on my car insurance or chase the neighbours personally for costs. For everyone arguing about how you prove a roof was defective, the simple fact that bits of it fell off tend to point to the fact that it wasn't exactly in tip top condition...
Like I said if that is the only property in the area with damage it's more likely poor maintenance. But if there is other local damage they will say extreme weather and no negligence. I think.
shost said:
The storm that damaged my car was worse than today's. But they have cancelled flights there has been a death. Anyway hope the OP gets a good solution because when I investigated I could only claim on my car insurance or chase the neighbours personally for costs.
Like I said if that is the only property in the area with damage it's more likely poor maintenance. But if there is other local damage they will say extreme weather and no negligence. I think.
Cancellation of flights doesn't mean much either. At LHR, it was done because the windy conditions meant controllers wanted a bit more seperation between flights. As Heathrow is running at nigh on 100% capacity at all times, then the smallest thing will trigger delays or cancellations that other airports would just absorb.Like I said if that is the only property in the area with damage it's more likely poor maintenance. But if there is other local damage they will say extreme weather and no negligence. I think.
The wind today is strong, but very rarely did it go out of limits and it was virtually straight down the runway as the wind was westerly, so nothing too exciting to deal with. Personally, I find weather like this fun, not scary when flying.
ianwayne said:
It's why anyone with a mortgage has to have buildings insurance by law.
Now that's twaddle. The only insurances required by law are third party motor risks (with some exceptions), Employers' Liability, horse riding schools and nuclear installations.Buildings insurance is (usually) required by a mortgagee.
xRIEx said:
Buildings insurance is (usually) required by a mortgagee.
Presumably this is because if the building were to burn down, the mortgager would want it rebuilt (and if the mortgagee could afford that he probably wouldn't need a mortgage...), not because a tile might fall off and hit the neighbours car?Edited by bobfett on Wednesday 22 October 13:33
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff