Insurance company disputing property damage claim
Discussion
A very nice lady had a pedal mix up and drove her Toyota through our garden fence. She smashed down the fence and gate, knackered some weathered-in decking panels, as well as crushing the supporting joists underneath when the car had to be craned out.
Got quotes for replacement from local firms, sent them off to her along with claim for half a day lost work at my day rate and five hours of my time spent sorting out emergency fencing etc. She sent all the details to her car insurance company.
Insurance company then asked for minute details from the firms that quoted me, and sent an examiner round who found nothing untoward (or at least that's what he told me).
Insurance company has now come back offering a third of what I've claimed for - basically just the fence and gate, 12 panels and labour at slightly below the quoted cost. They said "Our client is not liable for your time. The decking does not need complete replacement due to this incident.".
My stance is that their client should indeed be liable for my time, as it was only spent because of her actions. And that the whole deck needs to be replaced, because 12 new boards won't match the weathered-in ones, and besides, the whole lot needs to come up to replace the knackered joists. The amount they've offered certainly won't bring it all back to standard.
Just wanted to get a sense-check - are my expectations unreasonable? I don't see why I should lose out aesthetically and financially in lost time because of their client's actions. Or is that not how this works, in reality? Am I flogging a dead horse trying to challenge this, or is it worth standing my ground?
Thanks in advance.
Got quotes for replacement from local firms, sent them off to her along with claim for half a day lost work at my day rate and five hours of my time spent sorting out emergency fencing etc. She sent all the details to her car insurance company.
Insurance company then asked for minute details from the firms that quoted me, and sent an examiner round who found nothing untoward (or at least that's what he told me).
Insurance company has now come back offering a third of what I've claimed for - basically just the fence and gate, 12 panels and labour at slightly below the quoted cost. They said "Our client is not liable for your time. The decking does not need complete replacement due to this incident.".
My stance is that their client should indeed be liable for my time, as it was only spent because of her actions. And that the whole deck needs to be replaced, because 12 new boards won't match the weathered-in ones, and besides, the whole lot needs to come up to replace the knackered joists. The amount they've offered certainly won't bring it all back to standard.
Just wanted to get a sense-check - are my expectations unreasonable? I don't see why I should lose out aesthetically and financially in lost time because of their client's actions. Or is that not how this works, in reality? Am I flogging a dead horse trying to challenge this, or is it worth standing my ground?
Thanks in advance.
I would expect you to be put in the same position - so the decking would all match. Having said that, I doubt they'd pay for it all due to betterment - i.e it was <x> years old already when she hit it.
I think claiming for your time is unreasonable and I'm not surprised they refused that.
I think claiming for your time is unreasonable and I'm not surprised they refused that.
If you were making a first party claim on your own insurance then your time would not be covered.
This is a liability claim though, against the driver, and I would expect them to pay for your time provided you can substantiate it. Must be worth pushing for it.
Betterment is a concept also more appropriate to first party claims , I would expect to have the damage repaired properly, which seems to be all you are asking for.
Might be worth talking to a solicitor if the amount makes it worthwhile.
This is a liability claim though, against the driver, and I would expect them to pay for your time provided you can substantiate it. Must be worth pushing for it.
Betterment is a concept also more appropriate to first party claims , I would expect to have the damage repaired properly, which seems to be all you are asking for.
Might be worth talking to a solicitor if the amount makes it worthwhile.
I don’t think you are being necessarily unreasonable but I do think you will struggle to get them to pay for your time.
It wasn’t something the Insurer asked you to do beyond just getting quotes from third parties.
Nothing to stop you going back and querying their payment quantum but as with the “ old “ decking you cannot expect them to put you into a better position than you were prior to the loss.
It wasn’t something the Insurer asked you to do beyond just getting quotes from third parties.
Nothing to stop you going back and querying their payment quantum but as with the “ old “ decking you cannot expect them to put you into a better position than you were prior to the loss.
PhillT said:
A very nice lady had a pedal mix up and drove her Toyota through our garden fence. She smashed down the fence and gate, knackered some weathered-in decking panels, as well as crushing the supporting joists underneath when the car had to be craned out.
Got quotes for replacement from local firms, sent them off to her along with claim for half a day lost work at my day rate and five hours of my time spent sorting out emergency fencing etc. She sent all the details to her car insurance company.
Insurance company then asked for minute details from the firms that quoted me, and sent an examiner round who found nothing untoward (or at least that's what he told me).
Insurance company has now come back offering a third of what I've claimed for - basically just the fence and gate, 12 panels and labour at slightly below the quoted cost. They said "Our client is not liable for your time. The decking does not need complete replacement due to this incident.".
My stance is that their client should indeed be liable for my time, as it was only spent because of her actions. And that the whole deck needs to be replaced, because 12 new boards won't match the weathered-in ones, and besides, the whole lot needs to come up to replace the knackered joists. The amount they've offered certainly won't bring it all back to standard.
Just wanted to get a sense-check - are my expectations unreasonable? I don't see why I should lose out aesthetically and financially in lost time because of their client's actions. Or is that not how this works, in reality? Am I flogging a dead horse trying to challenge this, or is it worth standing my ground?
Thanks in advance.
It does not really matter what your stance is, the insurers client is not responsible for your time.Got quotes for replacement from local firms, sent them off to her along with claim for half a day lost work at my day rate and five hours of my time spent sorting out emergency fencing etc. She sent all the details to her car insurance company.
Insurance company then asked for minute details from the firms that quoted me, and sent an examiner round who found nothing untoward (or at least that's what he told me).
Insurance company has now come back offering a third of what I've claimed for - basically just the fence and gate, 12 panels and labour at slightly below the quoted cost. They said "Our client is not liable for your time. The decking does not need complete replacement due to this incident.".
My stance is that their client should indeed be liable for my time, as it was only spent because of her actions. And that the whole deck needs to be replaced, because 12 new boards won't match the weathered-in ones, and besides, the whole lot needs to come up to replace the knackered joists. The amount they've offered certainly won't bring it all back to standard.
Just wanted to get a sense-check - are my expectations unreasonable? I don't see why I should lose out aesthetically and financially in lost time because of their client's actions. Or is that not how this works, in reality? Am I flogging a dead horse trying to challenge this, or is it worth standing my ground?
Thanks in advance.
Did her insurer instruct you to spend 1/2 a day looking at quotes etc? Did they agree your day rate in advance? Did they agree emergency fencing?
I would imagine that they have seen your "bill" and have gone through every aspect of claim looking at where there is "padding," so will be very reluctant to allow any kind of betterment.
nikaiyo2 said:
It does not really matter what your stance is, the insurers client is not responsible for your time.
Did her insurer instruct you to spend 1/2 a day looking at quotes etc? Did they agree your day rate in advance? Did they agree emergency fencing?
I would imagine that they have seen your "bill" and have gone through every aspect of claim looking at where there is "padding," so will be very reluctant to allow any kind of betterment.
Yes but the OP didn’t invite the insurers client to drive through his fence! Potentially emergency works were required to prevent the OPs dog, horse or other animal escaping. The OP could have got a contractor in as an emergency but they may have charged significantly more so why shouldn’t the OP be compensated for their time?Did her insurer instruct you to spend 1/2 a day looking at quotes etc? Did they agree your day rate in advance? Did they agree emergency fencing?
I would imagine that they have seen your "bill" and have gone through every aspect of claim looking at where there is "padding," so will be very reluctant to allow any kind of betterment.
This is not a natural event. The insurers client made a mistake that result in her coming through his fence.
BertBert said:
If the driver just made a mistake then they are not liable for anything. To be liable they have to have been negligent
AIUI a mistake is negligence. A medical episode, for example isn't, as long as a doctor hasn't told you not to drive and if related to a notifiable condition it's been notified and you're clear to drive etcOf course, IANAL
I've had a few cars through my and my parent's fence - TBH they've all paid up quickly and without fuss
Including £5k for hitting a mature tree - in case it died, Dad had suggested to wait and see but they just wanted it closed
If you're self employed I think it's reasonable to charge for your time - I do when dealing with bank / internet / mobile suppliers - frequently I get all of it at £60/hr and it's very rare I don't get anything
Including £5k for hitting a mature tree - in case it died, Dad had suggested to wait and see but they just wanted it closed
If you're self employed I think it's reasonable to charge for your time - I do when dealing with bank / internet / mobile suppliers - frequently I get all of it at £60/hr and it's very rare I don't get anything
BertBert said:
If the driver just made a mistake then they are not liable for anything. To be liable they have to have been negligent
It can be both a mistake and negligence. If someone driving to the standard expected of a careful driver would not have made the mistake, it's negligence. In practice that means pretty much any mistake which leads to an accident is negligence. (Does driving through someone's fence fall below the standard expected of a careful driver? Well, you'd probably fail your driving test for doing it...)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff