Addenbrookes Hospital Car Park Fire - Insurance?
Discussion
Fortunately I’m just interested not involved, but I have used this car park quite a lot recently, so wondered what would have happened if I had been there at the wrong time.
For those who don’t know the story - 12 cars were destroyed by fire in a large hospital car park on Saturday. The car park is now out of action and 400 cars are ‘trapped’. Presumably the fire is thought to have caused some structural damage.
Cars belonging to both visitors and staff are involved.
So….imagine you have a car stuck in the car park. If it was one of the 12, then presumably you just put a total loss claim in to your insurers and things should be fairly straightforward (as long as someone can identify the 12 I suppose).
But what happens to everyone else? They might get their cars back in days or it might be months. Would an insurer cover the cost of a hire car (or alternatives) in this situation?
What if investigators work out which car started the fire - does the insurer of that vehicle pay for all resultant costs (other cars, hire cars, building damage, expenses etc. etc.)?
I suppose there might be precedents from the Luton airport fire.
For those who don’t know the story - 12 cars were destroyed by fire in a large hospital car park on Saturday. The car park is now out of action and 400 cars are ‘trapped’. Presumably the fire is thought to have caused some structural damage.
Cars belonging to both visitors and staff are involved.
So….imagine you have a car stuck in the car park. If it was one of the 12, then presumably you just put a total loss claim in to your insurers and things should be fairly straightforward (as long as someone can identify the 12 I suppose).
But what happens to everyone else? They might get their cars back in days or it might be months. Would an insurer cover the cost of a hire car (or alternatives) in this situation?
What if investigators work out which car started the fire - does the insurer of that vehicle pay for all resultant costs (other cars, hire cars, building damage, expenses etc. etc.)?
I suppose there might be precedents from the Luton airport fire.
There would have to be some negligence proven on the part of the car that started the fire, ie. A fault that was known about and not fixed. Otherwise it would be purely an accident
For trapped cars, insurers would have to take a view on economics of write offs and hire cars etc
For trapped cars, insurers would have to take a view on economics of write offs and hire cars etc
Edited by SydneyBridge on Monday 15th December 21:57
Steve-B said:
I read this and thought back to the Luton Airport fire a couple year ago.
Wonder how those whose cars were trapped were dealt with in the end?
A interweb search didn't yield any tidbits of information
I think those that could be recovered from the roof with cranes were lifted, the rest went in the demolition...Wonder how those whose cars were trapped were dealt with in the end?
A interweb search didn't yield any tidbits of information
Would it come under the liability insurance of whoever runs the car park? You are not able to access your vehicle because of a circumstance out of your control and although it is not because of the actions of the car park provider, the same would be true if a wall had collapsed blocking the exit/entrance?
Who did you pay for the service.
That is who you have the contract with.
They say it's not our fault we don't maintain the lift,we don't own this or that ect.
Then you sue them my contract is with you.
Simple, unless you have a legal system that just wants to milk it for everything it's worth.
That is who you have the contract with.
They say it's not our fault we don't maintain the lift,we don't own this or that ect.
Then you sue them my contract is with you.
Simple, unless you have a legal system that just wants to milk it for everything it's worth.
kestral said:
Who did you pay for the service.
That is who you have the contract with.
They say it's not our fault we don't maintain the lift,we don't own this or that ect.
Then you sue them my contract is with you.
Simple, unless you have a legal system that just wants to milk it for everything it's worth.
When you pay to park in a car park, are they agreeing to compensate you for all losses, regardless how so ever incurred, or are they only responsible for losses arising out of their negligence? That is who you have the contract with.
They say it's not our fault we don't maintain the lift,we don't own this or that ect.
Then you sue them my contract is with you.
Simple, unless you have a legal system that just wants to milk it for everything it's worth.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
kestral said:
Who did you pay for the service.
That is who you have the contract with.
They say it's not our fault we don't maintain the lift,we don't own this or that ect.
Then you sue them my contract is with you.
Simple, unless you have a legal system that just wants to milk it for everything it's worth.
When you pay to park in a car park, are they agreeing to compensate you for all losses, regardless how so ever incurred, or are they only responsible for losses arising out of their negligence? That is who you have the contract with.
They say it's not our fault we don't maintain the lift,we don't own this or that ect.
Then you sue them my contract is with you.
Simple, unless you have a legal system that just wants to milk it for everything it's worth.
The opposite is more likely to be the case. See all those signs that say "the management accept no responsibility for any loss or damage etc etc...". Which are of limited use as far as defending a claim for negligence goes, but are certainly not a sign that they are agreeing to take on more than the bare minimum level of liability that the law insists that they take on.
There is a FB page with people from the Luton fire still having insurance challenges.
Lots of the cars there were lifted off and sent to COPART. People could go and retrieve things but insurance paid our for most.
Some people wanted cars back, other claimed "smoke" had ruined them.
Its a pain whatever outcome, people had to take as a "fault" claim too so insurance was higher on the next car
Lots of the cars there were lifted off and sent to COPART. People could go and retrieve things but insurance paid our for most.
Some people wanted cars back, other claimed "smoke" had ruined them.
Its a pain whatever outcome, people had to take as a "fault" claim too so insurance was higher on the next car
It's the same situation as the fire at the Liverpool Echo Arena Car Park, but that was on a much bigger scale. That seems to have been caused by an old petrol LR product that had a fuel leak, but I don't know if it has been finally resolved. At the end of the day to claim against the owner of that vehicle you'd need to establish they knew about the leak.
Nearly every car park I use displays a disclaimer from the operator effectively denying liability for any loss or damage and that you park at your own risk.
I can't see insurers providing a hire car if your car isn't damaged, just stranded. The policy covers loss or damage to the car, with a hire car as a benefit following loss or damage.
Nearly every car park I use displays a disclaimer from the operator effectively denying liability for any loss or damage and that you park at your own risk.
I can't see insurers providing a hire car if your car isn't damaged, just stranded. The policy covers loss or damage to the car, with a hire car as a benefit following loss or damage.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff