A tree fell on my car. Where to start?

[The Rookie]

And if they say no?

And yes it is different, you have to prove (unless they accept the claim) negligence - and not all motor vehicle collisions get paid as the same rule applies, just easier to make your case - that may well mean a court case.

[yellowjack]

Yipper said:

Simply cannot believe you have involved your own insurer!

You now have a black mark against your personal insurance record (through zero fault of your own) and all the potential that has for higher premiums or tougher renewals in the future. Insurers count everything against customers in their attempts to maximise revenues (whether they admit it publicly or not).

Just to repeat -- a Sainsbury's tree in a Sainsbury's carpark smashed up a Sainsbury's customer's car... It is absolutely no different to if a Sainsbury's truck in a Sainsbury's carpark had smashed up a Sainsbury's customer's car... Sainsbury's pays.

There's a contractual obligation to inform your insurance company of any occurrence which may alter the terms of your insurance. I'd far rather take a bit of a hit at renewal time than for them to find out later and refuse to insure me at all, or even worse, cancel my policy. Because then, when I went after quotes for a new policy I'd have to declare that I had been refused insurance - and that is a far blacker mark than a claim, as far as insurance companies are concerned.

Furthermore, if Sainsbury's do get arsey and try to wriggle out of liability, I have already reported the incident to my insurer, who has assured me that I will be covered by them under the terms of my fully comprehensive policy. If I'd not told them about it, and a few weeks along the line Sainsbury's suddenly refused to play ball, then I can imagine some eyebrows being raised when I began claim proceedings.

You may feel that I'm ill-advised to do this, but this way I've met my obligation to provide any and all information and assistance to my insurer, even if I do not need to claim through them. As per my contract terms. I can see no major advantage in trying to sweep this under the carpet because insurers do share information, and if Sainsbury's involve their insurance company then I'm pretty sure it'll be possible for my insurer to find out about the claim anyway. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I've always dealt honestly with people and companies I come into contact with. It's just the way I am.

[Chester draws]

Have we determined that Sainsbury's are actually liable for the damage to your car?? If not, they can't get arsey and wriggle out of it!

Have you managed to get estimates for repair yet?

Have you heard anything more from the manager at Sainsbury's yet, or is the next step still you providing estimates as requested on day one?

[The Rookie]

What do you mean by "can't"? The only way to force them to pay is court action, so yes they can get arsey and refuse to pay.

[Chester draws]

I meant that if they're not liable for it, there is nothing to wriggle out of.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Yipper said:

Just to repeat -- a Sainsbury's tree in a Sainsbury's carpark smashed up a Sainsbury's customer's car... It is absolutely no different to if a Sainsbury's truck in a Sainsbury's carpark had smashed up a Sainsbury's customer's car...

Apart from the small matter of negligence. I minor issue I know, it's just a shame that the entire law of tort revolves around it.

Instead of posting this utter tripe, why don't you actually spend 30 seconds on Google and educate yourself.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Chester draws said:

Have we determined that Sainsbury's are actually liable for the damage to your car??

No. And it's going to be very hard to prove they were negligent. Because the chances are, they weren't. The OP's best hope of getting money out of Sainsburys is an ex gratia settlement, which is entirely possible. Sainsburys agreeing to pay as a gesture of goodwill.

[DaveH23]

Yipper said:

Simply cannot believe you have involved your own insurer!

You now have a black mark against your personal insurance record (through zero fault of your own) and all the potential that has for higher premiums or tougher renewals in the future. Insurers count everything against customers in their attempts to maximise revenues (whether they admit it publicly or not).

Just to repeat -- a Sainsbury's tree in a Sainsbury's carpark smashed up a Sainsbury's customer's car... It is absolutely no different to if a Sainsbury's truck in a Sainsbury's carpark had smashed up a Sainsbury's customer's car... Sainsbury's pays.

Without being Yippered we still don't know if it was a Sainsburys tree yet. The land may not be theirs.

When taking out or renewing an insuramce policy you are always asked the following;

"Have you ANY accidents or ANY claims in the past 3/5 years?"

What would you say in response to those questions when renewing your insurance Yipper?

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Apart from the small matter of negligence. I minor issue I know, it's just a shame that the entire law of tort revolves around it.

Instead of posting this utter tripe, why don't you actually spend 30 seconds on Google and educate yourself.

Do not feed the troll.

[Blue Oval84]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Apart from the small matter of negligence. I minor issue I know, it's just a shame that the entire law of tort revolves around it.

Instead of posting this utter tripe, why don't you actually spend 30 seconds on Google and educate yourself.

You think he's interested in educating himself?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Blue Oval84 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Apart from the small matter of negligence. I minor issue I know, it's just a shame that the entire law of tort revolves around it.

Instead of posting this utter tripe, why don't you actually spend 30 seconds on Google and educate yourself.

You think he's interested in educating himself?

I know it was a long shot.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

DaveH23 said:

Without being Yippered we still don't know if it was a Sainsburys tree yet. The land may not be theirs.

Exactly right. I had an incident years ago at our local Waitrose (PH stealth/wealth boast) and "their" car park is actually nothing to do with them.

[FiF]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

DaveH23 said:

Without being Yippered we still don't know if it was a Sainsburys tree yet. The land may not be theirs.

Exactly right. I had an incident years ago at our local Waitrose (PH stealth/wealth boast) and "their" car park is actually nothing to do with them.

Go on, admit it, you were only there for the milfs.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

FiF said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

DaveH23 said:

Without being Yippered we still don't know if it was a Sainsburys tree yet. The land may not be theirs.

Exactly right. I had an incident years ago at our local Waitrose (PH stealth/wealth boast) and "their" car park is actually nothing to do with them.

Go on, admit it, you were only there for the milfs.

Fortunately, I'm married to a milf.

[Pica-Pica]

yellowjack said:

Yipper said:

Simply cannot believe you have involved your own insurer!

You now have a black mark against your personal insurance record (through zero fault of your own) and all the potential that has for higher premiums or tougher renewals in the future. Insurers count everything against customers in their attempts to maximise revenues (whether they admit it publicly or not).

Just to repeat -- a Sainsbury's tree in a Sainsbury's carpark smashed up a Sainsbury's customer's car... It is absolutely no different to if a Sainsbury's truck in a Sainsbury's carpark had smashed up a Sainsbury's customer's car... Sainsbury's pays.

There's a contractual obligation to inform your insurance company of any occurrence which may alter the terms of your insurance. I'd far rather take a bit of a hit at renewal time than for them to find out later and refuse to insure me at all, or even worse, cancel my policy. Because then, when I went after quotes for a new policy I'd have to declare that I had been refused insurance - and that is a far blacker mark than a claim, as far as insurance companies are concerned.

Furthermore, if Sainsbury's do get arsey and try to wriggle out of liability, I have already reported the incident to my insurer, who has assured me that I will be covered by them under the terms of my fully comprehensive policy. If I'd not told them about it, and a few weeks along the line Sainsbury's suddenly refused to play ball, then I can imagine some eyebrows being raised when I began claim proceedings.

You may feel that I'm ill-advised to do this, but this way I've met my obligation to provide any and all information and assistance to my insurer, even if I do not need to claim through them. As per my contract terms. I can see no major advantage in trying to sweep this under the carpet because insurers do share information, and if Sainsbury's involve their insurance company then I'm pretty sure it'll be possible for my insurer to find out about the claim anyway. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I've always dealt honestly with people and companies I come into contact with. It's just the way I am.

Just ignore Yipper. I have informed my insurer in similar circumstances, as you say, you are obliged to. Never any issue (there may be issues if you did not).

[TwigtheWonderkid]

yellowjack said:

There's a contractual obligation to inform your insurance company of any occurrence which may alter the terms of your insurance. I'd far rather take a bit of a hit at renewal time than for them to find out later and refuse to insure me at all, or even worse, cancel my policy. Because then, when I went after quotes for a new policy I'd have to declare that I had been refused insurance - and that is a far blacker mark than a claim, as far as insurance companies are concerned.

Furthermore, if Sainsbury's do get arsey and try to wriggle out of liability, I have already reported the incident to my insurer, who has assured me that I will be covered by them under the terms of my fully comprehensive policy. If I'd not told them about it, and a few weeks along the line Sainsbury's suddenly refused to play ball, then I can imagine some eyebrows being raised when I began claim proceedings.

You may feel that I'm ill-advised to do this, but this way I've met my obligation to provide any and all information and assistance to my insurer, even if I do not need to claim through them. As per my contract terms. I can see no major advantage in trying to sweep this under the carpet because insurers do share information, and if Sainsbury's involve their insurance company then I'm pretty sure it'll be possible for my insurer to find out about the claim anyway. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I've always dealt honestly with people and companies I come into contact with. It's just the way I am.

In any given circumstance, if you do the opposite of what Yipper advises, you won't go far wrong.

[berlintaxi]

FiF said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

DaveH23 said:

Without being Yippered we still don't know if it was a Sainsburys tree yet. The land may not be theirs.

Exactly right. I had an incident years ago at our local Waitrose (PH stealth/wealth boast) and "their" car park is actually nothing to do with them.

Go on, admit it, you were only there for the milfs.

Milfs? My local Waitrose is wall to wall blue rinse brigade.

Yipper talking bks....quelle surprise

[KungFuPanda]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

FiF said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

DaveH23 said:

Without being Yippered we still don't know if it was a Sainsburys tree yet. The land may not be theirs.

Exactly right. I had an incident years ago at our local Waitrose (PH stealth/wealth boast) and "their" car park is actually nothing to do with them.

Go on, admit it, you were only there for the milfs.

Fortunately, I'm married to a milf.

Custard please.

Anyway I'm with you on this. OP has to prove Sainsburys have been negligent.

If Sainsburys have trees on their car park, they must have a reasonable system of inspection to ensure the trees are safe. Note "reasonable". I don't know what a reasonable system is. There will be cases law to support such systems of inspection. I'd expect it to be annual or possibly twice a year. If they have regular records of inspections which shows that a tree specialist inspected all of the trees and nothing was wrong, they're home and dry on their defence. It's the same with local authorities. If they regularly inspect their roads and a defect pops up between those inspections without anyone reporting it the them, they've done all that they can.

And all those expecting the supermarket to make an ex grate payment to keep a customer happy. They won't.

Edited by KungFuPanda on Saturday 13th January 00:51

[67Dino]

Entirely agree. First, it isn’t cut and dried negligence. And second, even if it is, that doesn’t guarantee you a payout.

People who don’t know much about law often naively assume that if someone does something wrong the other party automatically ‘wins’. Unfortunately that’s not the case. Even if a company makes a clear breach of contract, you still have to go through a lengthy legal process to force them to cough up. And since companies can easily drag out a case to enormous expense, unless you have limitless funds and 100% confidence in winning, you have to think hard about whether it’s worth pursuing.

Sainsbury’s are a business, so if there isn’t both a clear case of negligence and/or a strong reputational reason to pay, there’s every reason they would refuse to. Pursuing them could quickly rack up a legal bill for the OP that would outstrip the costs of making an insurance claim (if you’ve not used lawyers before, get used to seeing monthly bills in the thousands).

That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to ask, and find out if they would be happy to pay. But if they’re not, even if they’re 100% negligent, that doesn’t mean you will just ‘get the money’.

[Bill]

Have you got any quotes yet?