Act of God and Insurance.
Discussion
So during Storm Eunice a pub across the road had their rubber roof blown off.
Its flown over the street, over the house and landed behind us in the neighbours garden. I initially thought the rubber felt was from our loft dormer however we got CCTV showing it had flown over from the pub!
As its flown over there were some tiles that were attached to the rubber felt roof. The initial tiles landed on a neighbours car, smashing his back windscreen and scratching his vehicle. some tiles came off and smashed two front windows, Luckily they were double glazed and the outer pane was the one smashed. As its flown over its knocked tiles off our roof, hit the dormer and took some of the outer cladding off. I havent had the chance to see what else it has hit ontop of the roof.
From there its flown over and landed on the phone line of our neighbours, disconnecting it and its there now. its a huge piece and very hard to move.
The pubs not opened since this happened so i dropped a letter in yesterday with the details of the damage and contact details.
She's just got in touch with me and said her insurance will not pay for additional damage caused by the flying roof as its an act of god.
Where do I go from here? I have no house insurance (stupid i know) would i just get in touch with solicitor and persue the pub owners for costs?
Its flown over the street, over the house and landed behind us in the neighbours garden. I initially thought the rubber felt was from our loft dormer however we got CCTV showing it had flown over from the pub!
As its flown over there were some tiles that were attached to the rubber felt roof. The initial tiles landed on a neighbours car, smashing his back windscreen and scratching his vehicle. some tiles came off and smashed two front windows, Luckily they were double glazed and the outer pane was the one smashed. As its flown over its knocked tiles off our roof, hit the dormer and took some of the outer cladding off. I havent had the chance to see what else it has hit ontop of the roof.
From there its flown over and landed on the phone line of our neighbours, disconnecting it and its there now. its a huge piece and very hard to move.
The pubs not opened since this happened so i dropped a letter in yesterday with the details of the damage and contact details.
She's just got in touch with me and said her insurance will not pay for additional damage caused by the flying roof as its an act of god.
Where do I go from here? I have no house insurance (stupid i know) would i just get in touch with solicitor and persue the pub owners for costs?
MadMullah said:
So during Storm Eunice a pub across the road had their rubber roof blown off.
Its flown over the street, over the house and landed behind us in the neighbours garden. I initially thought the rubber felt was from our loft dormer however we got CCTV showing it had flown over from the pub!
As its flown over there were some tiles that were attached to the rubber felt roof. The initial tiles landed on a neighbours car, smashing his back windscreen and scratching his vehicle. some tiles came off and smashed two front windows, Luckily they were double glazed and the outer pane was the one smashed. As its flown over its knocked tiles off our roof, hit the dormer and took some of the outer cladding off. I havent had the chance to see what else it has hit ontop of the roof.
From there its flown over and landed on the phone line of our neighbours, disconnecting it and its there now. its a huge piece and very hard to move.
The pubs not opened since this happened so i dropped a letter in yesterday with the details of the damage and contact details.
She's just got in touch with me and said her insurance will not pay for additional damage caused by the flying roof as its an act of god.
Where do I go from here? I have no house insurance (stupid i know) would i just get in touch with solicitor and persue the pub owners for costs?
I just don't understand this "act of God" nonsenseIts flown over the street, over the house and landed behind us in the neighbours garden. I initially thought the rubber felt was from our loft dormer however we got CCTV showing it had flown over from the pub!
As its flown over there were some tiles that were attached to the rubber felt roof. The initial tiles landed on a neighbours car, smashing his back windscreen and scratching his vehicle. some tiles came off and smashed two front windows, Luckily they were double glazed and the outer pane was the one smashed. As its flown over its knocked tiles off our roof, hit the dormer and took some of the outer cladding off. I havent had the chance to see what else it has hit ontop of the roof.
From there its flown over and landed on the phone line of our neighbours, disconnecting it and its there now. its a huge piece and very hard to move.
The pubs not opened since this happened so i dropped a letter in yesterday with the details of the damage and contact details.
She's just got in touch with me and said her insurance will not pay for additional damage caused by the flying roof as its an act of god.
Where do I go from here? I have no house insurance (stupid i know) would i just get in touch with solicitor and persue the pub owners for costs?
Clearly it's not god, it's the weather, and insurance is exactly here to cover these things
Seems a cop out if you ask me
I bet their policy doesn't say "act of God"... that's just how people describe it, in the same way VED is described as "road tax". People know what it means without having to get pedantic.
Insurance companies use a force majeure clause to limit their liability, because policies would be flipping expensive were they to cover every single liability ever possible.
It's a "get out" insomuch as customers want affordable insurance policies.
And as for not having home insurance?!? I hope the house is not mortgaged, as they would be pretty pissed I imagine (insurance is a condition of my mortgage).
It's a crazy decision to not insure the biggest asset anyone is likely to buy, but what's done is done, hard lessons are well learned etc. etc.
Insurance companies use a force majeure clause to limit their liability, because policies would be flipping expensive were they to cover every single liability ever possible.
It's a "get out" insomuch as customers want affordable insurance policies.
And as for not having home insurance?!? I hope the house is not mortgaged, as they would be pretty pissed I imagine (insurance is a condition of my mortgage).
It's a crazy decision to not insure the biggest asset anyone is likely to buy, but what's done is done, hard lessons are well learned etc. etc.
charltjr said:
You can try, but unless they were negligent (roof in a poor state of repair etc) and you can show evidence of that then it's in the "s
t happens" bucket I'm afraid.
the wood pieces that flew off with the roof are all rotting wood. i'm sure if i looked at the piece that flew off i'd see more neglect. t happens" bucket I'm afraid.CarCrazyDad said:
I just don't understand this "act of God" nonsense
Clearly it's not god, it's the weather, and insurance is exactly here to cover these things
Seems a cop out if you ask me
Act of God is a legal term for a natural event which occurs without human involvement and which could not have been prevented with any realistic amount of care or foresight. The pub is not liable for the effects of an Act of God, so by definition the pub's liability insurance will not cover it. The pub's insurance exists to protect the pub after all, not to protect the OP's house.Clearly it's not god, it's the weather, and insurance is exactly here to cover these things
Seems a cop out if you ask me
(This assumes of course that the roof flying off was indeed the result of an Act of God and not the result of negligence on the part of the pub).
It IS however exactly what the storm damage section of the OP's home insurance policy exists to cover, so if he had home insurance he could claim from that. As he doesn't, presumably having to pay for storm damage to his house was a risk he thought was worth taking...?
The proximate cause of the damage is storm. The Pub owner has apparently not been negligent and is therefore not legally liable for the damage caused by bits of his roof flying off.
The owner of the car needs to claim under their motor insurance (assuming they have comp. cover) and the OP unfortunately is uninsured for the damage to their property.
The owner of the car needs to claim under their motor insurance (assuming they have comp. cover) and the OP unfortunately is uninsured for the damage to their property.
Ian Geary said:
Insurance companies use a force majeure clause to limit their liability, because policies would be flipping expensive were they to cover every single liability ever possible.
It's a "get out" insomuch as customers want affordable insurance policies.
And as for not having home insurance?!? I hope the house is not mortgaged, as they would be pretty pissed I imagine (insurance is a condition of my mortgage).
i guess its time to pay it out from my own pocket. I just thought if a car skids on ice and hits a wall then that isnt described as an act of god. if the ice wasnt present the accident of the car hitting the wall would not happen. same if the wind was not here the roof would not have flown off and hit our house. but the car insurance would pay to repair the damaged wallIt's a "get out" insomuch as customers want affordable insurance policies.
And as for not having home insurance?!? I hope the house is not mortgaged, as they would be pretty pissed I imagine (insurance is a condition of my mortgage).
to be honest if the house has ever needed repairs i've just paid out for them over the years - been here over 40 years never had insurance.
MadMullah said:
i guess its time to pay it out from my own pocket. I just thought if a car skids on ice and hits a wall then that isnt described as an act of god. if the ice wasnt present the accident of the car hitting the wall would not happen. same if the wind was not here the roof would not have flown off and hit our house. but the car insurance would pay to repair the damaged wall
to be honest if the house has ever needed repairs i've just paid out for them over the years - been here over 40 years never had insurance.
In your example - the driver is driving badly and therefore the car skids on the ice - ice and car alone with no driver does not equal car skiddingto be honest if the house has ever needed repairs i've just paid out for them over the years - been here over 40 years never had insurance.
wind and roof with no pub owner does equal roof coming off
totally different
MadMullah said:
i guess its time to pay it out from my own pocket. I just thought if a car skids on ice and hits a wall then that isnt described as an act of god. if the ice wasnt present the accident of the car hitting the wall would not happen. same if the wind was not here the roof would not have flown off and hit our house. but the car insurance would pay to repair the damaged wall
to be honest if the house has ever needed repairs i've just paid out for them over the years - been here over 40 years never had insurance.
Not all skidding on ice claims get paid out, if you were to stop at a junction and someone then skidded into the back of you, then they were driving negligently and the insurers would pay out, however, if all cars driving down the road, lost traction and skidded into each other, then the drivers would only be able to claim off their own insurers, as there was no negligence from any party.to be honest if the house has ever needed repairs i've just paid out for them over the years - been here over 40 years never had insurance.
MadMullah said:
to be honest if the house has ever needed repairs i've just paid out for them over the years - been here over 40 years never had insurance.
Normal repairs wouldn’t be covered by insurance anyway.However if you’re saved 40 years of insurance premiums then you should still be quids in.
In the same way over 50 years of motoring I’ve never had breakdown insurance. If I ever need it now then I’m still up.
MadMullah said:
to be honest if the house has ever needed repairs i've just paid out for them over the years - been here over 40 years never had insurance.
Could you afford to rebuild the whole house? e.g. if a fire wiped it all out.As above, insurance isn't really for maintenance repairs, more for big cost stuff. Fires, flood/boiler floods house etc.
Drawweight said:
Normal repairs wouldn’t be covered by insurance anyway.
However if you’re saved 40 years of insurance premiums then you should still be quids in.
I thought thats what home insurance was for? lol tbh my parents never had and i've never had it either. i see those adverts for home insurance and the leaking pipes. However if you’re saved 40 years of insurance premiums then you should still be quids in.
Dracoro said:
Could you afford to rebuild the whole house? e.g. if a fire wiped it all out.
As above, insurance isn't really for maintenance repairs, more for big cost stuff. Fires, flood/boiler floods house etc.
Well like i said we've had the house for 40 odd years and never really needed anything more than a leaking pipe. or the occasional broken window. Though after this I have been looking more closely at home insurance. We were having some home renovations done as it is this week so i'll get them to give me a quote for the roof and cladding damageAs above, insurance isn't really for maintenance repairs, more for big cost stuff. Fires, flood/boiler floods house etc.
MadMullah said:
Well like i said we've had the house for 40 odd years and never really needed anything more than a leaking pipe. or the occasional broken window. Though after this I have been looking more closely at home insurance. We were having some home renovations done as it is this week so i'll get them to give me a quote for the roof and cladding damage
As far as I know, if you have a leaky pipe insurance won't pay to fix it. If you have a leaky pipe and it rots your floorboards so they need replacing, insurance will/should/might pay to replace your floorboards and any redecorating etc, but still wouldn't pay to fix the leaky pipe. It's not there for maintaining your home.Ian Geary said:
Insurance companies use a force majeure clause to limit their liability, because policies would be flipping expensive were they to cover every single liability ever possible.
It's a "get out" insomuch as customers want affordable insurance policies.
It's got nothing to do with force majeure clauses, or the insurer limiting the liabilities it covers to keep the policy affordable. It's simply a function of the fact that without negligence on the part of the pub, there is no liability for them to cover. It's a "get out" insomuch as customers want affordable insurance policies.
The pubs insurance will only pay for things that the pub would have to pay for itself were it not insured. It is there to protect the pub, not to protect other people who live near the pub. And the pub only has to pay for damage to other people's property if it's the result of something blameworthy that the pub has done. Having your roof blown off by the worst storm in 30 years is not (necessarily) blameworthy.
Edited by Aretnap on Thursday 24th February 21:11
MadMullah said:
Drawweight said:
Normal repairs wouldn’t be covered by insurance anyway.
However if you’re saved 40 years of insurance premiums then you should still be quids in.
I thought thats what home insurance was for? lol tbh my parents never had and i've never had it either. i see those adverts for home insurance and the leaking pipes. However if you’re saved 40 years of insurance premiums then you should still be quids in.
In the example of a water leak it would not cover replacing an old pipe which had gone rusty, but it might cover the damage caused by the pipe once uit started leaking. It might also cover repairs to the pipe if they were caused by an accident (eg you hammer a nail into the wrong part of your wall) rather then general wear and tear.
MadMullah said:
She's just got in touch with me and said her insurance will not pay for additional damage caused by the flying roof as its an act of god.
She's translated that as act of god, because she knows nothing about insurance. The whole act of god thing in insurance is an urban myth. No insurance policy mentions it, no insurance company deny claims because of it. It's made up nonsense.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Those are her words, not those of her insurers. I bet they never mentioned act of god. They just told her that because there was no negligence, she isn't legally liable, so as the insurers only cover her legal liability to third parties, they have nothing to pay.
She's translated that as act of god, because she knows nothing about insurance. The whole act of god thing in insurance is an urban myth. No insurance policy mentions it, no insurance company deny claims because of it. It's made up nonsense.
What he said. She's translated that as act of god, because she knows nothing about insurance. The whole act of god thing in insurance is an urban myth. No insurance policy mentions it, no insurance company deny claims because of it. It's made up nonsense.
In over 30 years handling insurance claims (and another 10 studying what I've bought) I've never seen one that contains the words "act of god".
Liability insurance is all about negligence, and exceptional events like Storm Eunice don't place any negligence on the pub owner unless the roof was hanging off beforehand.
That's when home insurance and comprehensive cover on the car pay off!
MadMullah said:
...Though after this I have been looking more closely at home insurance. We were having some home renovations done as it is this week so i'll get them to give me a quote for the roof and cladding damage
I'd certainly want the property insured if I had tradesmen in doing work, could be messy if something went wrong mid-job and you had nothing to lean on at all!Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff