Trampoline wind damage advice?
Discussion
Well it’s blowing a hoolie at the minute. The wind has took some slates off our roof, can’t actually see the damage but I am sure there will be an insurance claim needed.
The bigger issue is that our kids large trampoline which was in our garden and wedged behind a 7 foot hedge that protects it from the prevailing winds has just took off and blown out of the garden.
On its way it’s hit my a5 sport back (cheap lease deals) and has dented at least the bonnet, cracked the windscreen, dented and scratched the roof. After hitting the car it’s then smashed off the back of our Mercedes’ Vito van and has put a fair old dent in the tailgate.
The audi certainly won’t be cheap to fix and I expect the van probably won’t be either.
I haven’t rang the insurers yet as is pointless because I can’t assess the damage properly due to the wind still being very strong but how is this likely to pan out insurance wise? The house insurance is in both the wife and my name, the audi is insured in my name and the Vito in hers. With it all being interconnected I really can see this being a nightmare to sort.
Anyone had similar? Any advice on how this is likely to pan out?
I am absolutely fed up but at least nobody was hurt.
The bigger issue is that our kids large trampoline which was in our garden and wedged behind a 7 foot hedge that protects it from the prevailing winds has just took off and blown out of the garden.
On its way it’s hit my a5 sport back (cheap lease deals) and has dented at least the bonnet, cracked the windscreen, dented and scratched the roof. After hitting the car it’s then smashed off the back of our Mercedes’ Vito van and has put a fair old dent in the tailgate.
The audi certainly won’t be cheap to fix and I expect the van probably won’t be either.
I haven’t rang the insurers yet as is pointless because I can’t assess the damage properly due to the wind still being very strong but how is this likely to pan out insurance wise? The house insurance is in both the wife and my name, the audi is insured in my name and the Vito in hers. With it all being interconnected I really can see this being a nightmare to sort.
Anyone had similar? Any advice on how this is likely to pan out?
I am absolutely fed up but at least nobody was hurt.
SmoothCriminal said:
Think you are going to have to claim individually for the car and van on their respective policies.
You will have had to have been negligent to claim on the house insurance re storm damage, not sure if you can be negligent to yourself.
That was the bit that confused me. I worry that the respective companies will just push me back and forth between each of them. You will have had to have been negligent to claim on the house insurance re storm damage, not sure if you can be negligent to yourself.
We were paid out a couple of years ago after claiming from a neighbour for their trampoline flying into our patio doors.
Our insurer argued that the neighbour had been negligent because the trampoline has been blown around in high winds in the past (only onto a fence though), there was an amber warning for wind in place and the trampoline had not been secured, so it was foreseeable that this could/would happen.
Our insurer argued that the neighbour had been negligent because the trampoline has been blown around in high winds in the past (only onto a fence though), there was an amber warning for wind in place and the trampoline had not been secured, so it was foreseeable that this could/would happen.
Petrus1983 said:
It’s well known that you have to get your kids out onto trampolines in storm weather to avoid them taking off. This includes electrical storms.
Beyond that I have no extra help.
What would I rather sacrifice, the kids or the car? Some classic cars will be hard to replace. Beyond that I have no extra help.
Your home insurance is irrelevant in this situation. Even if you were negligent (eg if you didn't secure the trampoline properly) it won't cover your "liability" for damage to your own property, or to a close relative's property. It might cover your liabilities if a neighbour's car had been damaged.
Assuming you have comprehensive cover for the car and van you can claim for damage to both on their respective policies. No risk of a back and forth between your car and home insurers, but nobody else you can claim from to protect your no claims bonuses either.
Assuming you have comprehensive cover for the car and van you can claim for damage to both on their respective policies. No risk of a back and forth between your car and home insurers, but nobody else you can claim from to protect your no claims bonuses either.
Aretnap said:
Your home insurance is irrelevant in this situation. Even if you were negligent (eg if you didn't secure the trampoline properly) it won't cover your "liability" for damage to your own property, or to a close relative's property. It might cover your liabilities if a neighbour's car had been damaged.
Assuming you have comprehensive cover for the car and van you can claim for damage to both on their respective policies.
^^^THISAssuming you have comprehensive cover for the car and van you can claim for damage to both on their respective policies.
You're house insurance will include liabilities to third parties if you were negligent, but you cannot be you're own third party. You are the policyholder.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Aretnap said:
Your home insurance is irrelevant in this situation. Even if you were negligent (eg if you didn't secure the trampoline properly) it won't cover your "liability" for damage to your own property, or to a close relative's property. It might cover your liabilities if a neighbour's car had been damaged.
Assuming you have comprehensive cover for the car and van you can claim for damage to both on their respective policies.
^^^THISAssuming you have comprehensive cover for the car and van you can claim for damage to both on their respective policies.
You're house insurance will include liabilities to third parties if you were negligent, but you cannot be you're own third party. You are the policyholder.
Aretnap said:
Your home insurance is irrelevant in this situation. Even if you were negligent (eg if you didn't secure the trampoline properly) it won't cover your "liability" for damage to your own property, or to a close relative's property. It might cover your liabilities if a neighbour's car had been damaged.
Just to confirm if it hit a neighbours car any legal protection on the house insurance would have paid out. I put a fence post through my next door neighbours gas pipe (quite why his gas pipe is in my garden is a different question!) and my legal cover paid out as I was negligent I should have known it was there. They wouldnt have paid out if it was my own gas pipe..Chrisgr31 said:
Just to confirm if it hit a neighbours car any legal protection on the house insurance would have paid out. I put a fence post through my next door neighbours gas pipe (quite why his gas pipe is in my garden is a different question!) and my legal cover paid out as I was negligent I should have known it was there. They wouldnt have paid out if it was my own gas pipe..
Only if they were negligent in the way in which they secured their trampoline. Abdul Abulbul Amir said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Aretnap said:
Your home insurance is irrelevant in this situation. Even if you were negligent (eg if you didn't secure the trampoline properly) it won't cover your "liability" for damage to your own property, or to a close relative's property. It might cover your liabilities if a neighbour's car had been damaged.
Assuming you have comprehensive cover for the car and van you can claim for damage to both on their respective policies.
^^^THISAssuming you have comprehensive cover for the car and van you can claim for damage to both on their respective policies.
You're house insurance will include liabilities to third parties if you were negligent, but you cannot be you're own third party. You are the policyholder.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Abdul Abulbul Amir said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Aretnap said:
Your home insurance is irrelevant in this situation. Even if you were negligent (eg if you didn't secure the trampoline properly) it won't cover your "liability" for damage to your own property, or to a close relative's property. It might cover your liabilities if a neighbour's car had been damaged.
Assuming you have comprehensive cover for the car and van you can claim for damage to both on their respective policies.
^^^THISAssuming you have comprehensive cover for the car and van you can claim for damage to both on their respective policies.
You're house insurance will include liabilities to third parties if you were negligent, but you cannot be you're own third party. You are the policyholder.
In practice though having just checked my own home insurance (Direct Line) it unsurprisingly excludes liability for damage to "any property that is in your care, custody or control", so there's no cover for lease cars, hire cars, borrowed cars etc. I assume a clause along those lines is standard.
Aretnap said:
The third party would be the leasing company whose property he would have negligently damaged, so in principle it could be covered by a broadly enough worded liability section.
I think the lease agreement would have made the lease holder responsible for all damage, hence you insure a car when you lease it, and the leasing co does not insure the car, despite owning it. So the leasing co don't have a loss, the lease holder does. I had a similar situation, albeit without a trampoline, the home and car insurance were the same firm and after contacting both claims departments they settled it on the car insurance policy as a no fault claim.
I wasn’t very happy with this, but it actually made no difference to either renewal.
I wasn’t very happy with this, but it actually made no difference to either renewal.
I remember a year or two ago waking up after a large storm, walking to the back of the house with a cup of tea and looking out over the garden. Something wasn't quite right but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Once the brain cells started to kick in I noticed it. The trampoline (a bit 12 footer) had gone. The wind had picked it up and taken it over the back hedge. Now when I say hedge I mean 3m tall and 2m thick. Fortunately it is farmland behind us so there was no damage done. The trampoline had even landed back on it's feet. The recovery was interesting using a longline and brute force to roll it back over the hedge and back into the garden. Still got a further year or two use from it.
Morale of the story: make sure it is properly secured, and drop the side netting when high winds are forecast.
Morale of the story: make sure it is properly secured, and drop the side netting when high winds are forecast.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Aretnap said:
The third party would be the leasing company whose property he would have negligently damaged, so in principle it could be covered by a broadly enough worded liability section.
I think the lease agreement would have made the lease holder responsible for all damage, hence you insure a car when you lease it, and the leasing co does not insure the car, despite owning it. So the leasing co don't have a loss, the lease holder does. The point being that I think it's a case of exactly what the liability section covers and excludes, rather than a fundamental principle that it could never cover the damage to a lease car. As opposed to damage your own car, where there is a fundamental principle that you can't have a liability to yourself, so your liability insurance can never cover it.
Aretnap said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Aretnap said:
The third party would be the leasing company whose property he would have negligently damaged, so in principle it could be covered by a broadly enough worded liability section.
I think the lease agreement would have made the lease holder responsible for all damage, hence you insure a car when you lease it, and the leasing co does not insure the car, despite owning it. So the leasing co don't have a loss, the lease holder does. The point being that I think it's a case of exactly what the liability section covers and excludes, rather than a fundamental principle that it could never cover the damage to a lease car. As opposed to damage your own car, where there is a fundamental principle that you can't have a liability to yourself, so your liability insurance can never cover it.
It’s like arguing you don’t need accidental buildings damage cover as it’s technically the banks house. Doesn’t hold up.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff