Insurance advice - 'act of God' damage to 4 day old SLK!

[VX Foxy]

I think the answer to this may be straight forward but here goes...

A drainpipe blew off our neighbours building (business premises) and landed on the boot-lid of my business partners 4 day old SLK! The occupier of the building is saying that his insurance company have said it is an 'act of God' and aren't interested.

The damage is a fist sized dent in the middle of the boot-lid.

What is the best way to proceed? Claim off own insurance and put it down to experience? Civil claim?

Thanks in advance

[KevinA4quattro]

Unless you can prove negligence on the part of the building owner/occupier your BP needs to claim on their own insurance.

[mrmr96]

No such thing as an "Act of God" clause/term/get out in insurance. Suggest you remind them of that and contact the Ombusman down the line if they don't play ball.

[VX Foxy]

KevinA4quattro said:

Unless you can prove negligence on the part of the building owner/occupier your BP needs to claim on their own insurance.

Thanks Kevin - it seems that the drain pipe fell off because it wasn't maintained correctly - would that constitute negligence?

[SystemParanoia]

tell them to provide the contact and insurance details of this 'god'

[VX Foxy]

mrmr96 said:

No such thing as an "Act of God" clause/term/get out in insurance. Suggest you remind them of that and contact the Ombusman down the line if they don't play ball.

Yes, that's what I was thinking - should be force majeur surely?

[VX Foxy]

SystemParanoia said:

tell them to provide the contact and insurance details of this 'god'

MMC They'll be blaming the Pope next...oh, wait...

[ralphrj]

VX Foxy said:

Thanks Kevin - it seems that the drain pipe fell off because it wasn't maintained correctly - would that constitute negligence?

Yes, if it was reasonable that they should have known about the condition of the drainpipe.

[KevinA4quattro]

VX Foxy said:

Thanks Kevin - it seems that the drain pipe fell off because it wasn't maintained correctly - would that constitute negligence?

Could well do, was the owner/operator aware the drain was poorly maintained /hanging off etc.

[kooky guy]

KevinA4quattro said:

VX Foxy said:

Thanks Kevin - it seems that the drain pipe fell off because it wasn't maintained correctly - would that constitute negligence?

Could well do, was the owner/operator aware the drain was poorly maintained /hanging off etc.

Not sure that matters does it? What would be their position if it had fallen off and killed someone? I'd like to see them try and deny liability in that case.

[BMWBen]

They would only be able to cite such a get-out-of-jail-free card if there as no way that the homeowner could have reasonably expected that a drainpipe needed to be attached so as to resist wind.

If it had been knocked off by one of these, they may have a point:



But it wasn't, it was knocked off by the wind. Of course when you attach things to your house, you should attach them so they don't blow off.

IANAL, but I do have a brain.

[TorqueVR]

Your BP can only claim off the neighbour if he was negligent (ie he knew the pipe was dodgy and did nothing about it, or that he should have known that it was about to fall off), and that will probably be impossible to prove. His building insurer will cover storm damamge to the building but not damage due to poor maintenance or to the car. If it was storm damage than by implication the damage to the car was not the result of poor maintance, so the BP will not have a claim on the neighbour.

I have to admit to having form on this, my wife had to have a new bonnet due to a roof tile that came off in strong winds some years ago. There was no cover under the building or car polices so she had to stump up. I think you BP will just have to bite the bullet and get his wallet out.

[mrmr96]

TorqueVR said:

There was no cover under the building or car polices so she had to stump up. I think you BP will just have to bite the bullet and get his wallet out.

Doesn't sound right to me. If both the car and building are insured, then why does the owner end up paying for damage to the car by a bit of the building falling off?! Surely the building cover includes public liability?

[Mill Wheel]

I claimed of MY home insurance when a ridge tile blew off and took a section of guttering away with it - and they were happy to pay up for the repairs - no suggestion of an "act of god" then!

[VX Foxy]

mrmr96 said:

TorqueVR said:

There was no cover under the building or car polices so she had to stump up. I think you BP will just have to bite the bullet and get his wallet out.

Doesn't sound right to me. If both the car and building are insured, then why does the owner end up paying for damage to the car by a bit of the building falling off?! Surely the building cover includes public liability?

There was no storm! Just a little windy - there was no damage to anything else

[Zeeky]

VX Foxy said:

KevinA4quattro said:

Unless you can prove negligence on the part of the building owner/occupier your BP needs to claim on their own insurance.

Thanks Kevin - it seems that the drain pipe fell off because it wasn't maintained correctly - would that constitute negligence?

Broadly speaking yes it would. You need to pursue a claim on the basis that the building was not maintained properly and but for that fact the damage would not have occurred. The onus is on you to prove this.

[Noger]

mrmr96 said:

No such thing as an "Act of God" clause/term/get out in insurance. Suggest you remind them of that and contact the Ombusman down the line if they don't play ball.

True, but there is such a thing as "not being liable" which is about as good a " get out" as you can get.

Act of God is a perfectly decent defence to being held liable.

Although in this case I doubt it is applicable, as drainpipes falling off due to poor maintainance are reasonably predicable. Thus not acts of god.

Essentially the insurer is denying liability.

[TorqueVR]

mrmr96 said:

Doesn't sound right to me. If both the car and building are insured, then why does the owner end up paying for damage to the car by a bit of the building falling off?! Surely the building cover includes public liability?

The buildings policy covers damage to the building, so a neighbour's car is not covered and it is not part of the insured building. The car policy cover the car for motorinhg accidents, so bits blowing off a building are not included.

[John145]

Maybe a visit to the met office website might be useful to prove that the weather at the time of the incident was far from stormy, just windy, proving that the building was not maintained to a satisfactory condition - thus negligent. IMO.

[mrmr96]

TorqueVR said:

mrmr96 said:

Doesn't sound right to me. If both the car and building are insured, then why does the owner end up paying for damage to the car by a bit of the building falling off?! Surely the building cover includes public liability?

The buildings policy covers damage to the building, so a neighbour's car is not covered and it is not part of the insured building. The car policy cover the car for motorinhg accidents, so bits blowing off a building are not included.

I think the buildings policy will include public liability, as stated above but ignored by yourself.