1400 cars destroyed in a fire in Liverpool.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Ares said:

I guy I met whose car was fine of the ones lost, said he'd been told the estimated claim for the cars was over £30,000,000, and the car park was around £7,000,000, before loss of business compensation. There were apparently over 150 undamaged cars in the car park.

His insurers had been told to claim off the RR owners policy.

Imagine his renewal.
"Claims in the last 5 years?"
"Just the one".
"Value known?"
"Yes, about £45,000,000"
<click>.......

In order for the whole claim to be made against the insurer of the Range Rover, the claimants who have to prove that firstly, the Range Rover owner was negligent (not that his car caused the fire, but that he had actually done something wrong) and secondly, that subsequent losses were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his negligence.

I think to prove both of those will be tricky.

[saaby93]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Ares said:

I guy I met whose car was fine of the ones lost, said he'd been told the estimated claim for the cars was over £30,000,000, and the car park was around £7,000,000, before loss of business compensation. There were apparently over 150 undamaged cars in the car park.

His insurers had been told to claim off the RR owners policy.

Imagine his renewal.
"Claims in the last 5 years?"
"Just the one".
"Value known?"
"Yes, about £45,000,000"
<click>.......

In order for the whole claim to be made against the insurer of the Range Rover, the claimants who have to prove that firstly, the Range Rover owner was negligent (not that his car caused the fire, but that he had actually done something wrong) and secondly, that subsequent losses were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his negligence.

I think to prove both of those will be tricky.

It may have been discussed earlier in the thread but isnt the car park supposed to be designed so that fire doesnt spread from one level to another? If so the car park designers insurance may have something to foot

[bristolracer]

These figures look big, but to put insurance loss into perspective

Piper Alpha oil rig disaster $1.4 billion
Twin towers $3.5 billion
BP Deepwater horizon $6 billion (although BP will be picking up the lions share of the $60 billion bill!)
Hurricane Katrina $35 billion insured losses actual damage $230 billion

And to think we moan when our insurers put up our premiums by £20

[saaby93]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

In order for the whole claim to be made against the insurer of the Range Rover, the claimants who have to prove that firstly, the Range Rover owner was negligent (not that his car caused the fire, but that he had actually done something wrong) and secondly, that subsequent losses were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his negligence.

I think to prove both of those will be tricky.

Would that logic apply to someone drifting off a motorway, missing the armco, ending up on a railway track, resulting in two trains colliding?
reasonably forseeable

[GreatGranny]

Funny this Thread should reappear.

Having a chat with a guy I play hockey with (I'm a new member so don't know other players that well) and we were talking about cars.

His brand new Disco Sport was parked in the car park and destroyed by the fire.
Only had it 2 weeks!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

saaby93 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

In order for the whole claim to be made against the insurer of the Range Rover, the claimants who have to prove that firstly, the Range Rover owner was negligent (not that his car caused the fire, but that he had actually done something wrong) and secondly, that subsequent losses were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his negligence.

I think to prove both of those will be tricky.

Would that logic apply to someone drifting off a motorway, missing the armco, ending up on a railway track, resulting in two trains colliding?
reasonably forseeable

Yes, I think if you fall asleep at the wheel, it's not unreasonable to think that may result in leaving the road, and ending up in a river, railway track, etc. Also, reasonable foreseeability only applies to property damage, not to death or injury to people.

[Gameface]

Triumph Man said:

The Mad Monk said:

Has to be Liverpool, doesn't it?

They’ll probably have a memorial service for the Range Rover, and a concert Live (v)8

Cretins.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

GreatGranny said:

Funny this Thread should reappear.


His brand new Disco Sport was parked in the car park and destroyed by the fire.
Only had it 2 weeks!

After a couple of months of ownership, he probably would have been thinking of setting fire to it himself.

[dhutch]

saaby93 said:

Would that logic apply to someone drifting off a motorway, missing the armco, ending up on a railway track, resulting in two trains colliding?
reasonably forseeable

Depends why they drifted off the road I guess.

[FerdiZ28]

CH2 said:

The JCB wasn't in the building, it was outside the car park using a long reach arm to lift the cars from the roof.

https://youtu.be/LQsr3w8KkeQ

Can see the 64.5/65 mustang Two levels down from the discovery being picked up. Shame.

[heisthegaffer]

bristolracer said:

These figures look big, but to put insurance loss into perspective

Piper Alpha oil rig disaster $1.4 billion
Twin towers $3.5 billion
BP Deepwater horizon $6 billion (although BP will be picking up the lions share of the $60 billion bill!)
Hurricane Katrina $35 billion insured losses actual damage $230 billion

And to think we moan when our insurers put up our premiums by £20

There is a loss in Columbia ongoing I think involving construction of a dam where the quantum is fluctuating between $750m to $2.25bn as they don't yet know the extent of (presumably) design failure.

[Benton]

Another vid which demonstrates how they're able to remove cars parked closer to what was the centre of the building:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3jnUXlGFnM&fe...

Interesting to see the damage to the front of the Qashqai (car removal begins at 6:45, front damage apparent at 11:39) which was parked on the top level.

ETA: The tax was out on the Qashqai on 10th Jan which suggests the relevant insurance company settled very quickly. This points to a very early decision being made re the cars on the roof not coming down in one piece.

Edited by Benton on Wednesday 5th December 14:21

[Sheepshanks]

Mr Tidy said:

No idea on total costs to date, but 1,400 cars probably had hundreds of different insurers so any one vehicle insurer would probably have had only a fairly minor hit.

Several of the top car insurers in the UK have around 10% market share so chances are each of them had over 100 cars in there.

[Leptons]

Benton said:

Another vid which demonstrates how they're able to remove cars parked closer to what was the centre of the building:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3jnUXlGFnM&fe...

Interesting to see the damage to the front of the Qashqai (car removal begins at 6:45, front damage apparent at 11:39) which was parked on the top level.

ETA: The tax was out on the Qashqai on 10th Jan which suggests the relevant insurance company settled very quickly. This points to a very early decision being made re the cars on the roof not coming down in one piece.

Edited by Benton on Wednesday 5th December 14:21

The Tax issue points to absolutely nothing. If my car was stuck on the top floor of a burnt out building with no prospect of getting it down, the last thing I’d be doing is taxing it.

[Benton]

Leptons said:

The Tax issue points to absolutely nothing. If my car was stuck on the top floor of a burnt out building with no prospect of getting it down, the last thing I’d be doing is taxing it.

Agreed. But if you simply let the tax expire then the date of liability would be the 1st day of the next month.

I understood that if a car shows as untaxed during a given month (for example, the 10th in the case of the Qashqai) then it meant the car had changed hands and the new owner, or dealer that had taken it in PX, had not taxed it from that point.

[Sheepshanks]

Leptons said:

The Tax issue points to absolutely nothing. If my car was stuck on the top floor of a burnt out building with no prospect of getting it down, the last thing I’d be doing is taxing it.

It points to the car being written off. Tax is automatically cancelled, and a refund issued.

It was reported at the time that some insurers were issuing cheques very quickly. Apart from anything else, it ends their liability to supply a courtesy car where that benefit was in the policy so once it's clear the car ain't coming back they might as well get it done.

[Pete102]

bristolracer said:

These figures look big, but to put insurance loss into perspective

Piper Alpha oil rig disaster $1.4 billion
Twin towers $3.5 billion
BP Deepwater horizon $6 billion (although BP will be picking up the lions share of the $60 billion bill!)
Hurricane Katrina $35 billion insured losses actual damage $230 billion

And to think we moan when our insurers put up our premiums by £20

The BP Deepwater Horizon bill is expected to top $144 billion. For a private company this is massive. Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/j...

[Benton]

Sheepshanks said:

It points to the car being written off. Tax is automatically cancelled, and a refund issued.

This was the point I was trying to make, but considerably better put!

[Burwood]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

saaby93 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

In order for the whole claim to be made against the insurer of the Range Rover, the claimants who have to prove that firstly, the Range Rover owner was negligent (not that his car caused the fire, but that he had actually done something wrong) and secondly, that subsequent losses were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his negligence.

I think to prove both of those will be tricky.

Would that logic apply to someone drifting off a motorway, missing the armco, ending up on a railway track, resulting in two trains colliding?
reasonably forseeable

Yes, I think if you fall asleep at the wheel, it's not unreasonable to think that may result in leaving the road, and ending up in a river, railway track, etc. Also, reasonable foreseeability only applies to property damage, not to death or injury to people.

I agree that foreseeability will quash any claim against the RR policy. It’s simply not foreseeable but it might enter a multi year court battle to extract a sum from them without accepting liability. The great fire of London set that principle. Is flicking a smouldering fag end likely to burn the city to the ground. Err ‘no’. I don’t know for certain but insurance companies would offload the upper limits to Lloyd’s or Buffets General Re. In other words, wear the first X million and chain after that. I’m fully expecting each owner having to claim on their policy.

[Dog Star]

Just what happens when you breach your insurers liability limit.

For the same of argument lets assume it was my RR that caught fire and my insurer had a liability max of £20 million.

Realistically there's nothing they could do to me that is worthwhile - OK they could sue me but what for? Even if they took all my assets it's be peanuts.

What happens?