Tree has Fallen on my Porsche while visiting family's apt
Discussion
But the tree's insurer is entitled to know whether the car's owner is claiming from his own insurer, otherwise he could claim twice.
The car owner will have signed a contract with his insurer and needs to abide by it.
Never forget there's only a finite number of 'insurers' and the chances of theirs being the same as yours are not negligible.
In any case, they have a tendency to talk to one another.
Having a non-fault claim may be better than being found to be dishonest.
The car owner will have signed a contract with his insurer and needs to abide by it.
Never forget there's only a finite number of 'insurers' and the chances of theirs being the same as yours are not negligible.
In any case, they have a tendency to talk to one another.
Having a non-fault claim may be better than being found to be dishonest.
OutInTheShed said:
But the tree's insurer is entitled to know whether the car's owner is claiming from his own insurer, otherwise he could claim twice.
The car owner will have signed a contract with his insurer and needs to abide by it.
Never forget there's only a finite number of 'insurers' and the chances of theirs being the same as yours are not negligible.
In any case, they have a tendency to talk to one another.
Having a non-fault claim may be better than being found to be dishonest.
The third party or their insurer is not "entitled" to any of that info. The OP feels his vehicle has been damaged by a negligent tp, and is making a claim from them. They either pay it, or dispute it saying they weren't negligent. The car owner will have signed a contract with his insurer and needs to abide by it.
Never forget there's only a finite number of 'insurers' and the chances of theirs being the same as yours are not negligible.
In any case, they have a tendency to talk to one another.
Having a non-fault claim may be better than being found to be dishonest.
If the OP was claiming off his own policy and the tp, it will come to light when his own insurer goes to recover their outlay from the tp. If the OP isn't abiding by the contract with his own insurers, that's between him and them, and none of the tp's business.
As said, even if the OP had no insurance on his car, he'd still be entitled to claim from the tp.
sbk1972 said:
Feel for the OP. Terrible situation and I hope he gets it sorted.
However, like others above, £5000 excess. What was the original insurance quote before agreeing £5K ? How much did a £5K excess save you ?
What porches and how old are you ?
If the tree only damaged a porch then £5k seems excessive.. However, like others above, £5000 excess. What was the original insurance quote before agreeing £5K ? How much did a £5K excess save you ?
What porches and how old are you ?
NikBartlett said:
Hopefully the insurance company will carry out a root and branch investigation into this.
I do hope you're not barking up the wrong tree, hopefully the insurance company will twig on to their responsibility and pay out accordingly. If so, we could all take a leaf out of their book.As with all such cases it comes down to evidence. The basic question is whether the land owner had taken reasonable care to ensure the trees were safe. If they had, then there would be no liability. If they hadn't then they would have to pay.
There are industry standards for risk management of trees - https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/publications/com... A court would pay close attention to these standards, and if the landowner had observed them they'd probably be in the clear. If not, they could be held liable.
It helps the OP that the tree was immediately adjacent to a car park, as the standard of care is higher if the tree is in an area where there's a lot of public traffic.
But from a common sense point of view the OP has nothing to lose (and £5k to gain) by notifying a claim to the land owner. It may be that for a relatively small sum like this they would just pay on the basis that it's easier than fighting it.
When writing to them, the OP should ask for all records of inspections etc carried out in respect of the tree. He may be lucky and discover that there have been no inspections, but the mere fact he's asking the question may persuade the insurers that he knows what he's doing and that they may as well pay.
There are industry standards for risk management of trees - https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/publications/com... A court would pay close attention to these standards, and if the landowner had observed them they'd probably be in the clear. If not, they could be held liable.
It helps the OP that the tree was immediately adjacent to a car park, as the standard of care is higher if the tree is in an area where there's a lot of public traffic.
But from a common sense point of view the OP has nothing to lose (and £5k to gain) by notifying a claim to the land owner. It may be that for a relatively small sum like this they would just pay on the basis that it's easier than fighting it.
When writing to them, the OP should ask for all records of inspections etc carried out in respect of the tree. He may be lucky and discover that there have been no inspections, but the mere fact he's asking the question may persuade the insurers that he knows what he's doing and that they may as well pay.
Pro Bono said:
As with all such cases it comes down to evidence. The basic question is whether the land owner had taken reasonable care to ensure the trees were safe. If they had, then there would be no liability. If they hadn't then they would have to pay.
There are industry standards for risk management of trees - https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/publications/com... A court would pay close attention to these standards, and if the landowner had observed them they'd probably be in the clear. If not, they could be held liable.
It helps the OP that the tree was immediately adjacent to a car park, as the standard of care is higher if the tree is in an area where there's a lot of public traffic.
But from a common sense point of view the OP has nothing to lose (and £5k to gain) by notifying a claim to the land owner. It may be that for a relatively small sum like this they would just pay on the basis that it's easier than fighting it.
When writing to them, the OP should ask for all records of inspections etc carried out in respect of the tree. He may be lucky and discover that there have been no inspections, but the mere fact he's asking the question may persuade the insurers that he knows what he's doing and that they may as well pay.
I think it's unlikely they'll roll over that easily, but it's not impossible, and as you rightly say, OP has nothing to lose. There are industry standards for risk management of trees - https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/publications/com... A court would pay close attention to these standards, and if the landowner had observed them they'd probably be in the clear. If not, they could be held liable.
It helps the OP that the tree was immediately adjacent to a car park, as the standard of care is higher if the tree is in an area where there's a lot of public traffic.
But from a common sense point of view the OP has nothing to lose (and £5k to gain) by notifying a claim to the land owner. It may be that for a relatively small sum like this they would just pay on the basis that it's easier than fighting it.
When writing to them, the OP should ask for all records of inspections etc carried out in respect of the tree. He may be lucky and discover that there have been no inspections, but the mere fact he's asking the question may persuade the insurers that he knows what he's doing and that they may as well pay.
Have a look on Google Street; view archives if possible of the trees.
One incident local to us was trees shown to have been leaning further and further over in historical views. Landowner stated tree surgeons have seen it it is fine.
When it fell and blocked the road they got quite a bill from the Council for removal due to obvious rot (if anecdotes are to be believed.....but they did get tree surgeons in to then heavily pollard the other ten trees, removing three, still remaining by the highway so no smoke, no fire).........
One incident local to us was trees shown to have been leaning further and further over in historical views. Landowner stated tree surgeons have seen it it is fine.
When it fell and blocked the road they got quite a bill from the Council for removal due to obvious rot (if anecdotes are to be believed.....but they did get tree surgeons in to then heavily pollard the other ten trees, removing three, still remaining by the highway so no smoke, no fire).........
swisstoni said:
GT9 said:
swisstoni said:
It’s just elementary.
Are we looking at the same picture?The main stem that has broken has about a dozen large branches growing off it with about a million leaves attached.
The break does however look to be at a point where there was some local weakness/rotting.
What kind of tree is it? An ash? If so, they're b
ds for shedding branches. They seem to be brittle.Any sign of ill health of the living tissue, or fungus growing on the surface, or obvious decomposition visible where branches have previously fallen or have been removed should have given the owners an indication that the tree might be unstable. If you can find evidence like that ...
Mr_Megalomaniac said:
Stone02 said:
My excess for insurance is £5000
I'm sorry - what? £5k excess for insurance? How in the hell is this a good idea? On a Porsche of all cars as well.You're basically only insuring the Porsche in the event of a catastrophic crash.
It's not the same value as OP's car but i remember doing similar back when i was barely 18, had been driving less than a year, and decided to buy a modified R5 GTT. Only way to afford a decent premium back then was with a much bigger excess (£1250 which was also the equivalent of 1/3 of the total value of the car at the time).
Edited by AlexRS2782 on Sunday 26th June 02:05
First, just ask the management company to pay, and see what they say.
If that doesn't work..
My understanding is the repair will be +£5k, and the excess is £5k.
In that case, maybe as well go through the insurer, as:
a. If property owner / management company is liable, the insurer will recoup the money from them, which will pay for the repairs and the excess.
b. If the property owner isn't liable, the excess is less than the repair cost (only issue is potentially increased future premiums)
If that doesn't work..
My understanding is the repair will be +£5k, and the excess is £5k.
In that case, maybe as well go through the insurer, as:
a. If property owner / management company is liable, the insurer will recoup the money from them, which will pay for the repairs and the excess.
b. If the property owner isn't liable, the excess is less than the repair cost (only issue is potentially increased future premiums)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Anyone is entitled to claim directly from a third party insurer, and the third party doesn't have the option of only dealing with other insurers. They have to deal with whoever makes a claim against them.
The reason the OP doesn't want to go thru his own insurance is none of the tp insurer's business, be it a good reason or not. The OP could have had no insurance, and been driving illegally. He would still be entitled to put in a claim for his damage to the tree owner's liability insurers, and if the OP can prove negligence, then the tp insurers would have to pay out.
That is interesting as I have an issue at present where my car was damaged by unsecured temp fencing. They are denying negligence but have given their insurers details. I did not know I could make a direct claim The reason the OP doesn't want to go thru his own insurance is none of the tp insurer's business, be it a good reason or not. The OP could have had no insurance, and been driving illegally. He would still be entitled to put in a claim for his damage to the tree owner's liability insurers, and if the OP can prove negligence, then the tp insurers would have to pay out.
Jeremy-75qq8 said:
That is interesting as I have an issue at present where my car was damaged by unsecured temp fencing. They are denying negligence but have given their insurers details. I did not know I could make a direct claim
Where it comes unstuck is if the other party refuses to co-operate with their insurer - although you do sometimes hear of claims being settled where the policyholder says they know nothing about it (alleged car park damage is a common one).Sheepshanks said:
Appreciate it's not a great picture, but I'm not seeing £5000+ worth of damage to your car, or a written off 2020 Range Rover and badly damaged BMW.
Your car and the BMW look hardly touched, and it'd take a hefty amount of damage to write off a 2yr old RangeRover.
The first thing I'd be doing is getting a proper body shop estimate for repairs. It may be, say, £2k's worth of damage in which case, as the OP is going to be forking out that whatever happens, a clearer way forward may emerge.Your car and the BMW look hardly touched, and it'd take a hefty amount of damage to write off a 2yr old RangeRover.
Stone02 said:
Perhaps that would be to get the car fixed with their own money and pursue the landowner on a hope-for-the-best basis.
In the photo the part of the tree where it broke looks in bad condition. Discoloured heart, large area that might have been earlier damage resulting in long term rot? The branch above that area looks bare of foliage whilst branches from the other side have some. Very possibly indicating weakness/disease and scope for liability due to no inspection or lack of making it safe.
As for how to proceed? The experts in the field of insurance and legal profession have given advice. The rest is speculation, “I think it should be”, lack of knowledge.
As for how to proceed? The experts in the field of insurance and legal profession have given advice. The rest is speculation, “I think it should be”, lack of knowledge.
S17Thumper said:
I’ve heard of insuring for disaster rather than inconvenience but a five grand excess?! 
Sadly the rush for young People who can’t wait and must have it all now, means many have cars they can’t afford or appreciate, 23 with r8 v10 while selling drugs and living with parents, know of a 23 year old who has had m2 comp and decided 3k for insurance wasn’t that bad. If your given a 1500 iPhone at 12 what are going to want when your 21, it’s like growing up so fast people trip over themselves for material fulfillment.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff