Question on who pays/liability for burning down a house
Discussion
I'll preface this by acknowledging that the actual answer is likely to be "it depends on the detail in the Ts and Cs of the policy", but am asking as I'm interested in what would usually be the case...
An aquaintance's parents recently had the misfortune to experience a fire in their home (fortunately no-one was injured). The house is detached, so no damage to neighbouring properties.
They were having some roof repairs done by a local guy.
It seems that after doing some work on the felt under the tiled roof, he finished for the day and left, but it is suspected that he may have left a blowtorch on. A short while later, there was a smell of burning, and the roof/loft was in flames. Fire brigade arrived quickly, but the roof and most of the first floor was incinerated. The ground floor is also badly damaged due to smoke and the water used to douse the flames.
On initial contact with the home insurance company, their reaction was to say that it's not down to them, but the parents instead should contact the "roofer" about claiming on his professional liability policy. I think that there's a possibility that he may not have such cover (although I may be wrong on this).
What would the "normal" course of events be in this case?
Claim from home insurance, and the insurance then chase the "roofer" to reclaim the costs (or not)?
.. or are the parents likely to have to chase the "roofer" and the home insurance can wash their hands of any responsibility?
I understand it'll probably depend on the exact wording of the policy, but would appreciate any input, especially from people with experience of this type of situation/who work in the insurance industry..
An aquaintance's parents recently had the misfortune to experience a fire in their home (fortunately no-one was injured). The house is detached, so no damage to neighbouring properties.
They were having some roof repairs done by a local guy.
It seems that after doing some work on the felt under the tiled roof, he finished for the day and left, but it is suspected that he may have left a blowtorch on. A short while later, there was a smell of burning, and the roof/loft was in flames. Fire brigade arrived quickly, but the roof and most of the first floor was incinerated. The ground floor is also badly damaged due to smoke and the water used to douse the flames.
On initial contact with the home insurance company, their reaction was to say that it's not down to them, but the parents instead should contact the "roofer" about claiming on his professional liability policy. I think that there's a possibility that he may not have such cover (although I may be wrong on this).
What would the "normal" course of events be in this case?
Claim from home insurance, and the insurance then chase the "roofer" to reclaim the costs (or not)?
.. or are the parents likely to have to chase the "roofer" and the home insurance can wash their hands of any responsibility?
I understand it'll probably depend on the exact wording of the policy, but would appreciate any input, especially from people with experience of this type of situation/who work in the insurance industry..
Edited by C n C on Friday 17th November 17:45
C n C said:
Claim from home insurance, and the insurance then chase the "roofer" to reclaim the costs (or not)?
This I would have thought. I had a much smaller claim about some water damage that spent months going nowhere and my insurance company at the time explained it was because they were trying to ascertain liability. I had to get quite shirty with them and point out that was their problem, not mine.
Any standard UK home insurance policy for buildings and/or contents should deal with this claim.
The insurer can subrogate to recover from the roofers if they want…it’s their choice.
I cannot see any circumstance where a home insurance policy was in force, that the insurers would refuse to act and manage this claim.
The insurer can subrogate to recover from the roofers if they want…it’s their choice.
I cannot see any circumstance where a home insurance policy was in force, that the insurers would refuse to act and manage this claim.
I used to hire cameramen. I decided to investigate the insurance position in case there was an accident. My insurance company said it was up to the cameraman's insurance company. His insurance company said it was up to my insurance company. Frankly I'd lock them both in a cupboard and see which one gives up first.
We had a wall tile drop and go through the bottom of a £2k brand new bath. We explained to the buildings and contents insurer that we had a tiger and the tile fell off that night. They said they would not pay out as we needed to claim off the trade person. It turned out he was a part time fire fighter and had no cover at all. Went back to our insurer and they said they would not pay.
It was down to making the trader pay or sort it ourselves. We paid a bit out of goodwill and the tiler paid a bit.
It was down to making the trader pay or sort it ourselves. We paid a bit out of goodwill and the tiler paid a bit.
Caddyshack said:
We had a wall tile drop and go through the bottom of a £2k brand new bath. We explained to the buildings and contents insurer that we had a tiger and the tile fell off that night. They said they would not pay out as we needed to claim off the trade person. It turned out he was a part time fire fighter and had no cover at all. Went back to our insurer and they said they would not pay.
It was down to making the trader pay or sort it ourselves. We paid a bit out of goodwill and the tiler paid a bit.
I would not be upsetting that tiger so I would sort it myself.It was down to making the trader pay or sort it ourselves. We paid a bit out of goodwill and the tiler paid a bit.
Damn, beaten to it
C n C said:
It seems that after doing some work on the felt under the tiled roof, he finished for the day and left, but it is suspected that he may have left a blowtorch on.
Tough for the householder but I'd expect his insurance company to refuse his claim.
Aretnap said:
It's not unusual for home insurance policies to restrict cover of you are having major work or modifications done to your house, but it would be a very tightly worded policy that excluded damage caused by a bloke who came round to fix a leaky roof.
Some, not all, insurance companies shall suspend cover during an extension or major works on the basis the builders public liability insurance shall be fully responsible and no grey areas of who is responsible for what.I have had a client who had their policy cancelled halfway through an extension build as they had never informed them of commencement of works.
The cancelled policy was a huge red flag thereafter, as every single insurance application asks if you have ever had a policy cancelled.
It's a minefield, and a lot of contractors forget to inform their clients of this...
Boosted LS1 said:
Was the blowtorch found, was it on and empty?
This first, shirley?! “Suspected” the roofer left a blowtorch on (would have be a monumental moron, surely); is there any proof? If not then presumably it’s squarely with the home insurance regardless, unless the roofer coughs?Southerner said:
Boosted LS1 said:
Was the blowtorch found, was it on and empty?
This first, shirley?! “Suspected” the roofer left a blowtorch on (would have be a monumental moron, surely); is there any proof? If not then presumably it’s squarely with the home insurance regardless, unless the roofer coughs?Aretnap said:
Caddyshack said:
We explained to the buildings and contents insurer that we had a tiger and the tile fell off that night.
Not a surprise that the didn't pay - home insurance doesn't usually cover you for keeping dangerous wild animals.Sheepshanks said:
Southerner said:
Boosted LS1 said:
Was the blowtorch found, was it on and empty?
This first, shirley?! “Suspected” the roofer left a blowtorch on (would have be a monumental moron, surely); is there any proof? If not then presumably it’s squarely with the home insurance regardless, unless the roofer coughs?I spent over 30 years handling insurance claims, including household claims for 15 years and never once was a claim for damage like that declined on a household policy.
Admittedly I stopped handling household claims 25 years ago, but I would hope the approach hasn't changed that much.
My employer would then make a claim against the contractor to recover from him/his insurer assuming there was some evidence to show it was due to his negligence - that's what forensic investigators are for!
Admittedly I stopped handling household claims 25 years ago, but I would hope the approach hasn't changed that much.
My employer would then make a claim against the contractor to recover from him/his insurer assuming there was some evidence to show it was due to his negligence - that's what forensic investigators are for!
Wheelspinning said:
Aretnap said:
It's not unusual for home insurance policies to restrict cover of you are having major work or modifications done to your house, but it would be a very tightly worded policy that excluded damage caused by a bloke who came round to fix a leaky roof.
Some, not all, insurance companies shall suspend cover during an extension or major works on the basis the builders public liability insurance shall be fully responsible and no grey areas of who is responsible for what.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff