Accidental Fire Act 1943 and accidental fire damage to your car from other car?

Atlantic Dawn

Was listening to Liveline today, I know , there was a woman on who had parked her car in a shopping centre and when she returned to her car it was burned beyond repair as a result of a car parked next to it going on fire. When the contacted the insurance company of the car which went on fire his insurance company told her as a result of the Accidental Fire Act 1943 her car would not be covered and she would have to make a claim on her own insurance. I was a little shocked by this and always presumed in the case of an accidental fire the source vehicles insurance would be responsible for all damage. Anyone any experience of this, would make me think twice about parking near anything old and frail looking?

Here's the podcast for anyone who is interested, started around 2 minutes in...
http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2012/1030/20121030_rteradio1-liveline-problemswi_c20033101_20033107_232_.mp3

Here's Accidental Fire Act 1943
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1943/en/act/pub/0008/print.html

AN ACT TO RESTRICT THE TAKING OR CONTINUING OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY ACCIDENTAL FIRE. [20th April, 1943.]

BE IT ENACTED BY THE OIREACHTAS AS FOLLOWS:—

Restriction on legal proceedings in respect of accidental fires.
1.—(1) Where any person (in this section referred to as the injured person) has suffered damage by reason of fire accidentally occurring (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in or on the building or land of another person, then, notwithstanding any rule of law, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) no legal proceedings shall, after the passing of this Act, be instituted in any court by the injured person or any person claiming through or under him or as his insurer against such other person on account of such damage;

(b) if, in case the fire occurred before the passing of this Act, any such legal proceedings were instituted after the 16th day of November, 1942, and before the passing of this Act, and are pending at such passing, such legal proceedings shall be discharged and made void, subject to such order as to costs as the court in which such legal proceedings are pending or a judge thereof thinks fit to make.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) of this section shall be construed as affecting legal proceedings for the enforcement of any covenant or agreement contained in any lease or letting of a building or land.

(3) In this section the word “building” includes any structure of whatsoever material or for whatever purpose used.

Repeal.
2.—The pre-Union Irish statute passed in the year 1715 and entitled “An Act for preventing Mischief that may happen by fire” (2 Geo. 1, c. 5) is hereby repealed.

Short title.
3.—This Act may be cited as the Accidental Fires Act, 1943.

Supergurrier

2006 Renault Megane worth €12,000 lol.

Even the 5 grand she reckons she will be losing 7 grand on is optimistic

jayok

I'm no legal person, but it specifically refers to land and buildings. Does this apply to all types of property then?

slimjimmc

My reading of paragraph (1a) is that you can't claim against the building owner / land owner. The phrase "against such other person" seems to refers to "in or on the building or land of another person," in Para 1.

It doesn't mention the property of any other person, but specifically the building or land.

Imo it looks like the insurer was pulling a fast one.

coylemj

slimjimmc wrote: »

My reading of paragraph (1a) is that you can't claim against the building owner / land owner. The phrase "against such other person" seems to refers to "in or on the building or land of another person," in Para 1.

It doesn't mention the property of any other person, but specifically the building or land.

Imo it looks like the insurer was pulling a fast one.

+1 I read it the same way.

A owns the car park, B arrives there and parks his car. C arrives and parks beside B's car which goes on fire and as a result C's car catches fire and is destroyed.

The law to me says that neither party can sue A but I can't see why C can't sue B.

The critical term in the act is the reference to 'such other person', not to 'any other person'. I read 'such other person' as referring to the owner or occupier of the land or building.

oldyouth

To sue anybody, for any incident, you have to be able to prove negligence. The occurrence of a fire in itself is not sufficient. You need to establish that there was a breach of a duty of care to your property. If the cause of the fire was unforeseen, I think proving negligence will be extremely difficult, leaving you to claim off your own policy as the only option