Car Damaged our House

[staffordian]

My experience is probably out of date now, but when I worked in insurance, unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I'm pretty sure that impact damage to perimeter walls, gates and fences was excluded, presumably because it was more an inevitability than a rare event.

[richlist]

Not all building insurance covers garden walls, fences, boundaries etc.

You need to check your policy. If it's not covered your insurers will suggest you contact the driver for repair costs......which I understand is what they have done.

[Loup321]

I don't think your house insurance company is doing this correctly. As I understand it, you've suffered damage to your property which is covered by the insurance policy you hold with them. They need to deal with it to put it right. If they then go on to claim from the driver, that's their business. If they increase your premiums, so be it. You pay the premiums to them for them to sort out this sort of mess when it happens, hopefully once in a blue moon.

Only if this damage is not covered (read the policy documents) should you try claiming directly from the driver.

I would get back on to your insurance company, and get them to check that this is covered (having read the policy documents and satisfied yourself that it is covered). If it's covered, then tell them you want to make a claim.

But surely the whole point is that the OP does not want to claim on his insurance.

Dod

Sorry, I missed that in the OP. Then I don't understand why the OP has insurance, if he doesn't want to claim on it for a sum this big. Car insurance is required by law (or you can pay a massive bond to be held somewhere if you're super-rich), but home insurance is not. A 5-figure sum is certainly on the claim side of my personal claim/don't claim line, but a bike worth less than the excess would not be.

Obviously, if it is covered, which is not clear to me at the moment. Policies do vary, as do customer services staff.

[Dod101]

I would let your own insurers know about the damage as well though, because although the driver has apparently admitted liability, when he discovers the considerable numbers that you have quoted he may suddenly change his tune. He could possible have had a tyre bow out, tried to avoid a child running out in front of him or say anything else to get him off the hook. There is no absolute responsibility, although since the wall had been there no doubt for some time and it did not jump out to hit his car, the prima face evidence would suggest that the driver has at least got some explaining to do.

How would any of those things - even if proved true to the satisfaction of a court - affect the driver's liability to make good the damage done?

Be very wary of the third scenario. Driver's insurers refuse to pay and because you tried to sort it out yourself, and dropped it in your insurer's lap when the other party refused, your house insurer refuse to process your claim.

How can driver's insurers refuse to pay (assuming driver is indeed insured)?
So long as the claimant hasn't done something dodgy - like adding a new duck house to the works ...

Well I have never heard of a case where a car driver has an absolute liability for third party property damage. It has got to be caused by his negligence and any one of the circumstances that I have cited could probably be used in a successful defence. There may be an assumption of liability but that in itself does not make the driver liable any more than water cascading through a ceiling from a flat above makes that flatowner liable either.

Dod

[Dod101]

I don't think your house insurance company is doing this correctly. As I understand it, you've suffered damage to your property which is covered by the insurance policy you hold with them. They need to deal with it to put it right. If they then go on to claim from the driver, that's their business. If they increase your premiums, so be it. You pay the premiums to them for them to sort out this sort of mess when it happens, hopefully once in a blue moon.

Only if this damage is not covered (read the policy documents) should you try claiming directly from the driver.

I would get back on to your insurance company, and get them to check that this is covered (having read the policy documents and satisfied yourself that it is covered). If it's covered, then tell them you want to make a claim.

But surely the whole point is that the OP does not want to claim on his insurance.

Dod

Sorry, I missed that in the OP. Then I don't understand why the OP has insurance, if he doesn't want to claim on it for a sum this big. Car insurance is required by law (or you can pay a massive bond to be held somewhere if you're super-rich), but home insurance is not. A 5-figure sum is certainly on the claim side of my personal claim/don't claim line, but a bike worth less than the excess would not be.

Obviously, if it is covered, which is not clear to me at the moment. Policies do vary, as do customer services staff.

I am certainly not disagreeing with you and assuming walls gates and fences are insured under his home policy that is probably the better way to go, considering the not insignificant amount involved. One of the problems these days is that everything is done on the phone, not like the old days where you could pop in to a local branch office and have a chat. From that you could get an idea of the seniority of the person you are talking to and thus whether they are taking you seriously.

Dod

[AF62]

I don't think your house insurance company is doing this correctly. As I understand it, you've suffered damage to your property which is covered by the insurance policy you hold with them. They need to deal with it to put it right. If they then go on to claim from the driver, that's their business. If they increase your premiums, so be it. You pay the premiums to them for them to sort out this sort of mess when it happens, hopefully once in a blue moon.

Only if this damage is not covered (read the policy documents) should you try claiming directly from the driver.

I would get back on to your insurance company, and get them to check that this is covered (having read the policy documents and satisfied yourself that it is covered). If it's covered, then tell them you want to make a claim.

But surely the whole point is that the OP does not want to claim on his insurance.

If his insurance company gets their money back from the driver then he hasn't claimed.

I would let your own insurers know about the damage as well though, because although the driver has apparently admitted liability, when he discovers the considerable numbers that you have quoted he may suddenly change his tune. He could possible have had a tyre bow out, tried to avoid a child running out in front of him or say anything else to get him off the hook. There is no absolute responsibility, although since the wall had been there no doubt for some time and it did not jump out to hit his car, the prima face evidence would suggest that the driver has at least got some explaining to do.

How would any of those things - even if proved true to the satisfaction of a court - affect the driver's liability to make good the damage done?

A tyre blowing out on a car serviced regularly or swerving to avoid a child who suddenly ran off the pavement whilst driving along in a safe manner; in neither case was the driver negligent and insurance will only pay out if you are liable for the damage and you are not if you have not been negligent.

As for proving it - balance of probabilities depending on the circumstances.

[Dod101]

Just looked up my Direct LIne policy wording. It specifically includes damage to garden walls, hedges, gates and fences but not caused by storm or flood or falling trees. Not much left although damage caused by a road vehicle does not seem to be excluded. In fact it goes on to say that damage caused by collision involving aircraft or vehicles or animals is covered.

I would recommend that the OP reads the small print of his policy.

Dod

[UncleEbenezer]

A tyre blowing out on a car serviced regularly or swerving to avoid a child who suddenly ran off the pavement whilst driving along in a safe manner; in neither case was the driver negligent and insurance will only pay out if you are liable for the damage and you are not if you have not been negligent.

As for proving it - balance of probabilities depending on the circumstances.

The driver was not driving in a safe manner: the crash proves that beyond any doubt. It might have been "safe under some notion of normal circumstances", but that argument is a sliding scale to every boy-racer or drunk.

That is seriously screwed up when the victim is an entirely innocent third-party. No matter what the immediate circumstances, the driver is the person not merely in charge of a deadly weapon but also driving in in a manner that was unsafe. Surely that's precisely why third-party insurance is a legal requirement?

If there were serious negligence, that might affect a driver's ability to claim for damage to his/her own vehicle, but not third-parties.

[AF62]

A tyre blowing out on a car serviced regularly or swerving to avoid a child who suddenly ran off the pavement whilst driving along in a safe manner; in neither case was the driver negligent and insurance will only pay out if you are liable for the damage and you are not if you have not been negligent.

As for proving it - balance of probabilities depending on the circumstances.

The driver was not driving in a safe manner: the crash proves that beyond any doubt. It might have been "safe under some notion of normal circumstances", but that argument is a sliding scale to every boy-racer or drunk.

Of course it is a sliding scale, as I mentioned, but if someone was driving along well within the speed limit and a child darted out from between two parked cars leaving the driver the option of running the child over or making a sudden manoeuvre which might cause damage to a wall or an oncoming car, would you really say the driver had been negligent if they swerved in trying to avoid killing the child?

That is seriously screwed up when the victim is an entirely innocent third-party. No matter what the immediate circumstances, the driver is the person not merely in charge of a deadly weapon but also driving in in a manner that was unsafe. Surely that's precisely why third-party insurance is a legal requirement?

I recall a case reported in my local newspaper a year or so ago where the council refuse collection had been driving along doing their collections when one of the bin lorry's tires exploded and as a result knocked over and damaged a motorbike. The motorbike owner held the same view as you, that as an entirely innocent third-party the council must be liable as it was their lorry which caused the damage to his bike. The council and their insurer's view was that they were not as the bin lorry was regularly serviced and thus there had been no negligence on their part so they were not paying.

As for third-party insurance being a legal requirement, that is the situation because in the vast majority of cases the person causing the damage with a car has been negligent! So to make sure the innocent third-party can get the money they are due because of the negligence, even if the driver is penniless.

It doesn't mean that it is there to cover losses the innocent third-party has incurred even though it is not their fault. That is what their own insurance is for.

[UncleEbenezer]

I recall a case reported in my local newspaper a year or so ago where the council refuse collection had been driving along doing their collections when one of the bin lorry's tires exploded and as a result knocked over and damaged a motorbike.

An entirely plausible explanation for that: Local paper, keen to tell of council misdeeds ('cos that's good for circulation), spins story from aggrieved motorbike owner over damage fixed by wiping it down with a damp cloth. Possibly even created the story in the first place, by goading the motorcyclist into trying to claim.

[AF62]

I recall a case reported in my local newspaper a year or so ago where the council refuse collection had been driving along doing their collections when one of the bin lorry's tires exploded and as a result knocked over and damaged a motorbike.

An entirely plausible explanation for that: Local paper, keen to tell of council misdeeds, spins story from aggrieved motorbike owner over damage fixed by wiping it down with a damp cloth. Possibly even created the story in the first place, by goading the motorcyclist into trying to claim.

"Local paper, keen to tell of council misdeeds" you haven't read my local newspaper. It is into investigative journalism as much as a cat is into astrophysics.

Its stories consist of the 'dog looked funny towards man' type, so an exploding tyre in a residential area with plenty of witnesses to give shocked "I thought I would die" quotes is manna from heaven for them without any tampering or goading.

[fridgeraider]

Many thanks for the points raised.

I have looked into my policy and it states

Significant exclusions or limitations that apply to buildings and contents cover:
• when Your House is Unfurnished or Unoccupied for more than 30 consecutive days, We will not provide
cover for: theft or attempted theft, escape of water/oil, vandalism and acts of malicious people, accidental
damage, accidental breakage or damage of windows, fixed sanitary ware, ceramic hobs which form part of
a fitted unit and contents left out in the open
• loss or damage to gates, hedges or fences caused by Storm or Flood
• loss or damage caused by vermin, birds, insects or domestic pets

I have highlighted for ease. Looks like it should be covered

As far as the driver of the car is concerned, he was stopped by police for driving erratically with a damaged car but later released as blood alcohol levels were below legal limit.

[Dod101]

That is seriously screwed up when the victim is an entirely innocent third-party. No matter what the immediate circumstances, the driver is the person not merely in charge of a deadly weapon but also driving in in a manner that was unsafe. Surely that's precisely why third-party insurance is a legal requirement?

If there were serious negligence, that might affect a driver's ability to claim for damage to his/her own vehicle, but not third-parties.

The victim in this case anyway appears to be an entirely innocent third party but that does not mean that there is any absolute liability on the car driver who causes damage to third party property. As I have said and as AF62 has said, there are any number of defences that a driver could raise which may prove he is innocent of negligence. Incidentally there is only negligence. There may be degrees of negligence to the layman but phrases like 'gross negligence' have been fought over in courts of law and I think I am right in saying that fundamentally you are either negligent or not. In fact I remember one case that I had to know about when a Court pronounced the term 'gross negligence' as a terminological inexactitude, unless it was further defined in a contract.

And certainly when I passed my insurance exams (a very long time ago) the only compulsory insurance was for the death of or bodily injury to a third party. I do not know if that has changed in the meantime. Nowadays of course if you buy Third Party only insurance that will usually cover personal injury or death and third party property damage.

So in this case, should the third party change his mind as to his liability (which he may do when he discovers the amount involved) it will be up to the OP to prove that the driver was negligent. In all I think he ought to check that he is covered by his house insurance and claim off that. it will save him lot of heartache, unless that is, the driver or his insurers accept that they are responsible.

Dod

As a PS I see that the OP seems to be covered. I would say report this to his insurers and get them to foot the bill. If they want to pursue the recovery let them get on with it.

[Dod101]

Actually, I think the phrase used in my case was 'a vituperative epithet', not 'terminological inexactitude' which was I think used by Churchill. It is amazing what come to you in the middle of the night.

At any rate, there is in law as I understand it, no such thing as gross negligence.

Dod