Rented property burned down.

begod

Tenants of a house had their contents destroyed when a house next door to theirs caught fire and spread to their rented property. They have no contents insurance, how do they stand in regards to the owners of the neighbouring property that caused the fire and their landlord in regards to be compensated for the loss of their property?

Mrs OBumble

I'd guess s**** out of luck- unless they can afford to hire a lawyer to pursue the owner of the house that started the fire.

But I could be quite wrong.

Their own landlord certainly cannot insure the tenant's possessions.

kkelliher

begod wrote: »

Tenants of a house had their contents destroyed when a house next door to theirs caught fire and spread to their rented property. They have no contents insurance, how do they stand in regards to the owners of the neighbouring property that caused the fire and their landlord in regards to be compensated for the loss of their property?

Unless the fire was started delibratly or there was neglegence there is no liability on the neighbour. The lanlord has no liability in any way.

They should have had their own insurance if they ever wished to receive compensation

marco_polo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'd guess s**** out of luck- unless they can afford to hire a lawyer to pursue the owner of the house that started the fire.

But I could be quite wrong.

Their own landlord certainly cannot insure the tenant's possessions.

I am by no means a legal expert but even at that I believe there would have to be negligence on the part of the neighbour to have any sort of case against them.

What I am sure of is you are 100% correct that the landlord has no responsibility whatsoever for covering tenants property.

begod

Thanks for the replies.

The landlord already has possessions in the house and will most likely be claiming under his/her own contents insurance.

Theoretically if the landlord, who is a friend, was to claim ownership of all contents which are damaged in the house would it be possible for the insurance company to discredit this and how would they distinguish between his possessions and those of the tenants?

Thanks again.

kkelliher

begod wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

The landlord already has possessions in the house and will most likely be claiming under his/her own contents insurance.

Theoretically if the landlord, who is a friend, was to claim ownership of all contents which are damaged in the house would it be possible for the insurance company to discredit this and how would they distinguish between his possessions and those of the tenants?

Thanks again.

Landlord will have to be able to confirm ownership, the lease will probably have a landlord contents list and why would a landlord gamble with it when if he is caught lieing the whole claim could be thrown out for fraud.

Also, In the main a landlord would not supply alot of what the tenant will have lost.

murphaph

kkelliher wrote: »

Also, In the main a landlord would not supply alot of what the tenant will have lost.

Exactly. The insurance company would see through claims for anything not typically provided by a LL...ie, 90% of the tenants' stuff...clothes, gadgets, electronics etc. etc. The tenants should have insured their belongings and now pay the price for their foolishness.

begod

kkelliher wrote: »

Landlord will have to be able to confirm ownership, the lease will probably have a landlord contents list and why would a landlord gamble with it when if he is caught lieing the whole claim could be thrown out for fraud.

Also, In the main a landlord would not supply alot of what the tenant will have lost.

True it wouldn't be worth the risk for the landlord to do so and the items in question would be suspicious.

From the posts above it looks like the only possible way for compensation( bearing the tenants are fully aware they should have had content insurance but didn't etc etc.) is if the fire was started deliberately in the neighbouring building.

Stella Virgo

sue the neighbour,he caused the damage to your stuff,regardless whether it was a fire,water damage,etc ,get a good solicitor ,his insurance has a minimum of 2/3 million public liability.( i guarantee you the landlord will sue him!) best of luck,do NOT be fobbed off.

Scortho

Stella Virgo wrote: »

sue the neighbour,he caused the damage to your stuff,regardless whether it was a fire,water damage,etc ,get a good solicitor ,his insurance has a minimum of 2/3 million public liability.( i guarantee you the landlord will sue him!) best of luck,do NOT be fobbed off.

Huge cash outlay if you don't win.
I'd be adding up what my contents were worth (2nd hand) and the chances of success.

djimi

Would the neighbours house insurance not cover the items that were destroyed in the neighbouring house? Surely the liability does not just stop at their property when the fire caused damage to neighbouring properties?

Slutmonkey57b

For all those saying the tenant should have contents insurance, I'd be interested to hear how they would go about it. No insurance company would quote for it when I was looking.

testicle

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

For all those saying the tenant should have contents insurance, I'd be interested to hear how they would go about it. No insurance company would quote for it when I was looking.

Loads of em.. https://www.google.ie/#q=tenants+contents+insurance

begod

djimi wrote: »

Would the neighbours house insurance not cover the items that were destroyed in the neighbouring house? Surely the liability does not just stop at their property when the fire caused damage to neighbouring properties?

That's what I'm not sure of, does a persons house insurance cover damage to third parties.

djimi

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

For all those saying the tenant should have contents insurance, I'd be interested to hear how they would go about it. No insurance company would quote for it when I was looking.

Not really sure where you were looking but any insurance company I rang (ie most of the main insurers/brokers) had no issue quoting me for contents insurance. Unless you live in a particularly high risk area, ie high crime rate or flood risk area or something like that?

seamus

Stella Virgo wrote: »

sue the neighbour,he caused the damage to your stuff,regardless whether it was a fire,water damage,etc ,get a good solicitor ,his insurance has a minimum of 2/3 million public liability.( i guarantee you the landlord will sue him!) best of luck,do NOT be fobbed off.

It's very well established in law and insurance practice that if your neighbour's house goes on fire and damages yours, your neighbour has no liability to you.

It's the main reason why insurers tend to insist on a block policy for modern developments - if a block of five buildings goes up in flames and the guy in the middle has no buildings insurance, then the block cannot be rebuilt until he stumps up the funding for his house.

It's not a case that the guy whose house goes up pays for the whole block. Any damage outside of his property is considered to be outside of his remit.

Unless of course you can prove that the fire was malicious or down to serious negligence (e.g. lighting a bonfire in the middle of the floor)

Same goes for flooding from burst pipes.

djimi

begod wrote: »

That's what I'm not sure of, does a persons house insurance cover damage to third parties.

I have no experience of house insurance unfortunately but Id be amazed if it doesnt.

djimi

seamus wrote: »

It's very well established in law and insurance practice that if your neighbour's house goes on fire and damages yours, your neighbour has no liability to you.

Fair enough; I stand amazed so! I find that quite ridiculous to be honest.

kkelliher

There was an act of law passed in ireland in the 50's called the accidental fire act and it limits the liability of a property owner to their own property in the event of an accidental fire.

Therefore you are wasting your own money sueing anyone unless you can prove it was not accidental ( ie was caused deliberatly or their was neglegence on the neighbours behalf)

begod

seamus wrote: »

It's very well established in law and insurance practice that if your neighbour's house goes on fire and damages yours, your neighbour has no liability to you.

It's the main reason why insurers tend to insist on a block policy for modern developments - if a block of five buildings goes up in flames and the guy in the middle has no buildings insurance, then the block cannot be rebuilt until he stumps up the funding for his house.

It's not a case that the guy whose house goes up pays for the whole block. Any damage outside of his property is considered to be outside of his remit.

Unless of course you can prove that the fire was malicious or down to serious negligence (e.g. lighting a bonfire in the middle of the floor)

Same goes for flooding from burst pipes.

Makes perfect sense and if the fire was found to be malicious and a person was convicted etc. I take it the tenants would have to hire a lawyer and pursue that person/people through the courts?

kkelliher

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

For all those saying the tenant should have contents insurance, I'd be interested to hear how they would go about it. No insurance company would quote for it when I was looking.

I honestly believe you would find it hard not to find one to quote

L1011

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

For all those saying the tenant should have contents insurance, I'd be interested to hear how they would go about it. No insurance company would quote for it when I was looking.

How long ago and in what country? Because pretty much every single insurer in the Irish market offers renters contents insurance and has done for years.

First hit for "house insurance" is FBD who have both contents for renters and contents-only for home owners as options on their quote system. That took fifteen seconds to find.

djimi

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

For all those saying the tenant should have contents insurance, I'd be interested to hear how they would go about it. No insurance company would quote for it when I was looking.

If you want contents insurance btw try and get in touch with RSA (may need to go through a broker; I went through Cornmarket). Very good prices and their level of cover was streets ahead of any other insurer that I spoke to.

3DataModem

begod wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

The landlord already has possessions in the house and will most likely be claiming under his/her own contents insurance.

Theoretically if the landlord, who is a friend, was to claim ownership of all contents which are damaged in the house would it be possible for the insurance company to discredit this and how would they distinguish between his possessions and those of the tenants?

Thanks again.

Well sure, if you want to commit insurance fraud there are easier ways to do it. But don't do it.