Insurance claim frustration!!

[MJK 24]

Can anyone offer me any help as I feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall!!

My trucks are parked on the site of a removals company in Liverpool. They have a large yard that is very secure. Access control, full perimeter fence, CCTV and 24hr security.

1/3rd of their yard is used for the parking of trucks. The remaining 2/3rds is used for the parking of touring caravans and motor homes.

Approx 50 trucks and 200 caravans.

Around midday on 12 July 2014, a chap was collecting his caravan with his 3 week old Hyundai i40. As he headed to the exit of the site, his car caught fire and he stopped. Right in front of my trucks :tsk

The car was 95% burnt out and the caravan 100%. The fire brigade did attend but they went up very quickly as you can imagine.

There are three third parties claiming for damages:

Myself. Two trucks damaged. One will cost £650 to rectify, the other £1,400.

The land owner. £10,000 damage to concrete.

A mechanic who was taking someones truck for MOT. His 5 series has scorched paint down one side.

The Hyundai owner is insured with Aviva. They're saying they won't pay out any third party claims as their client was not negligent. A witness saw him playing with the electrical plugs on the back of his car as one was smoking prior to him driving away :tsk

Unfortunately, we are also insured with Aviva which I believe is weakening my chances of a successful claim.

I thought this would be cut and driers but seemingly not! Am I right in thinking his insurers should cover all third party damages?

We are past six weeks and Aviva haven't sent even sent an engineer! I am losing the will to live! Help!

[V8forweekends]

Just because his car scorched your stuff doesn't make him (and therefore his insurer) automatically liable. You may have to claim on your own insurance. This is similar to if a neighbours tree falls on my car - just because I didn't do anything wrong doesn't make the neighbour or his insurers automatically responsible.

As to him fiddling with stuff - that's not necessarily proof he was negligent.

ETA This isn't really about insurance, it's about the law, and if you think about it, it's a good thing overall that there aren't many things where something is "automatically your fault".

Edited by V8forweekends on Wednesday 3rd September 18:04

[sherbertdip]

If Aviva are rejecting 3rd party claims, can't all affected 3rd parties club together and take out a civil claim against the car owner?

[CYMR0]

sherbertdip said:

If Aviva are rejecting 3rd party claims, can't all affected 3rd parties club together and take out a civil claim against the car owner?

Yes, they can, but their own insurers will have the right to assume conduct of (or discontinue) any claim.

On what basis would the claim be mounted?

The witness may show that he hooked his caravan up to his electrics but that doesn't seem very persuasive in establishing negligence. Fire is not capable of being a nuisance and even if it were, nuisance is a land-based tort. The car does not amount to a nuisance, whether or not it is up in flames at the time.

This needs to be a first-party fire claim on the insurance of the affected insurers, unless there is a real prospect of mounting a successful claim based on negligence (with evidence). If there are no insurers willing or able to step in, then effectively the potential claimants self-insured, knowing or otherwise.

[MJK 24]

I thought that the chaps insurance would cover damage to the property of any third parties. I was under the impression that this was as cut and dried as someone running into the back of someone - ie very little or no chance to dispute liability.

I genuinely thought his insurance company would cover the cost of damage to the property of third parties.

I had thought about taking the chap to the small claims court but to be honest, I would feel bad putting him through the stress of that as I think his insurers should cover the bill.

[LoonR1]

It's already been answered correctly. You can litigate left, right and centre but you're highly unlikely to win. If you sue him, then he'll pass it to his insurers. They have deep pockets and will rightly fight you over this.

Being insured by the same company makes no difference to the way the claim will be handled.

[catman]

If someone drives into the back of you, they were negligent, therefore you would have a claim. If they had a heart attack and hit you, they weren't negligent, so no claim.

That's my understanding, anyway. The fact that you have damage, doesn't in itself guarantee a successful claim.

Tim

[V8forweekends]

MJK 24 said:

I thought that the chaps insurance would cover damage to the property of any third parties.

Almost - it covers damage to TP property for which the guy would otherwise be liable.

MJK 24 said:

I was under the impression that this was as cut and dried as someone running into the back of someone - ie very little or no chance to dispute liability.

Why? It's very different - in the case of running into the back of someone it's 99% due to following too close or not looking. In this case a bloke's car caught fire - do you really think he knew or could reasonably have suspected that would happen, but let it happen anyway?

MJK 24 said:

I genuinely thought his insurance company would cover the cost of damage to the property of third parties.

I had thought about taking the chap to the small claims court but to be honest, I would feel bad putting him through the stress of that as I think his insurers should cover the bill.

If you could bring a viable small claims case, his insurers would cover him, the fact they won't suggests your SC action would fail...

I am not being difficult for the sake of it - but have a think about what happened.

[sherbertdip]

I'm learning here so bear with me.

If a car catches fire on the public highway, who pays for the repaired patch of burnt tarmac?

[MJK 24]

Thanks everyone for the replies and advice thus far!

Perhaps I am less than impartial as it is my property that is damaged!

I thought that if the chap has TPF&T insurance cover, that would indicate he has insured himself against the risk of fire damage to third party property?

I am not going to let this drop so easily.

[CYMR0]

MJK 24 said:

I thought that if the chap has TPF&T insurance cover, that would indicate he has insured himself against the risk of fire damage to third party property?

No.

It indicates that he has cover for:

• Third party liability.
• Fire (against his own loss).
• Theft (against his own loss).

A fire happened. It happened to his property and to yours. Neither third party liability, nor theft, occurred in this situation.

If you can show (with evidence, not suspicion or your personal opinion) how:

a. the insured had a duty to you (let's assume that he did have a duty to take reasonable care); and
b. he breached that duty (this is the tough one); and
c. that the loss that occurred as a result of that duty was reasonably foreseeable (probably OK, it's a fire and fires might spread)

then you have a claim. If you can't, you don't, and while the insured person had the foresight to insure his own property against fire, it doesn't mean that you have that benefit under his policy.

[tenpenceshort]

I like to believe every story has at least some upside. Here I believe the upside, an obvious and joyous one, is that one less caravan exists. Hoorah and, indeed, yay!

[V8forweekends]

sherbertdip said:

I'm learning here so bear with me.

If a car catches fire on the public highway, who pays for the repaired patch of burnt tarmac?

Depends on circumstances. If you drive like a penis and crash damaging tarmac, barriers, etc then quite rightly, HA or relevant body will come after you (and your insurer will likely end up paying)

If you pull over because the car's making an odd noise and it turns into a raging inferno without any warning, we all pay.

Edited by V8forweekends on Wednesday 3rd September 19:18

[V8forweekends]

tenpenceshort said:

I like to believe every story has at least some upside. Here I believe the upside, an obvious and joyous one, is that one less caravan exists. Hoorah and, indeed, yay!

[MJK 24]

V8forweekends said:

tenpenceshort said:

I like to believe every story has at least some upside. Here I believe the upside, an obvious and joyous one, is that one less caravan exists. Hoorah and, indeed, yay!

There was literally nothing left!! I may post a photo at the weekend for the amusement of the thread!

[V8 Fettler]

£10k for concrete damage?! Was a thermic lance involved? Or perhaps some sort of runway denial weapon?

[Xerstead]

Could he have reasonably stopped further away from other vehicles, or did he pull up close to yours?

[MJK 24]

V8 Fettler said:

£10k for concrete damage?! Was a thermic lance involved? Or perhaps some sort of runway denial weapon?

I thought that! There's a section about 10ft by 40ft that is now pitted and crumbling. I'm obviously in the wrong game...

[MJK 24]

Xerstead said:

Could he have reasonably stopped further away from other vehicles, or did he pull up close to yours?

Witness said the chap saw smoke, stopped, played with the plugs at the back and then left when it was obvious he had serious problems!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

catman said:

If someone drives into the back of you, they were negligent, therefore you would have a claim. If they had a heart attack and hit you, they weren't negligent, so no claim.

That's my understanding, anyway. The fact that you have damage, doesn't in itself guarantee a successful claim.

Tim

This post hits the nail bang on the head.