Neighbour taking friend to court

[Clappingforjoy]

My friend had a fire in his garden last April and it caused damage to some neighbouring gardens especially the one neighbour. My friend didn't and still doesnt know how it started so that remains a mystery and the fire brigade could only say that it started in our garden but they didnt know how.
Now several months later we have been made aware that the neighbour that suffered the most damage is taking him to court and is getting all the others on his side and got witness statements off them and gave them to his solicitor to say my friend was burning rubbish the day before he denies this and says the only thing he did was get a weed burner out from his shed st the side of the house and take it to the front garden to burn weeds then he put it back ensuring it was out.
After this he went out and on arriving home abt an hour later the fire had already started way at the bottom of the garden far from the side shed.
His son was there and had noticed the fire from his bedroom window and had already called the fire brigade.
All neighbours have since few months ago had all repairs done so I can only think they are claiming for thier excess.
What should he do friend is dismissing saying he is totally innocent and despite the fact he has a burner he hadnt used it for several weeks but claims he has smelt burning before from somebody else's garden in the past and there is no proof of anything except probably some made up statements from neighbours trying to get money.

I can see what the OP means. If for example, a neighbour threw a cigarette over a fence and it caught fire in her boyfriend's garden, the fire brigade could still say it started there but that wouldn't make it the boyfriend's fault.
However, I think it's more likely that a piece of debris from the weed burner blew to the back garden and sparked a fire there.
I would imagine the court is going to rule on what is most likely to have happened. If I was him I'd see a solicitor before deciding whether to let this get as far as court.

Alderyn There will be burn marks and all sorts to establish the source of the blaze.

It was - despite the devastation - really interesting watching the Fire people establishing the source of the blaze that took out our flat years ago.

They're quite good at this sort of thing.

And they log it as an incident report, with a number and everything, which the insurance companies are able to ask for.

OP your ex doesn't have to admit liability to be found liable.

I have a tree in my garden. If a branch comes down and goes through the neighbour's shed roof I am liable. I do not know how it came down (could have been lightning) but it came from my property and damaged theirs so I am liable for the cost. The only way I am not liable is if I can put the blame somewhere else for definite - if I saw X cutting the branch down so it fell through the roof then I can add them in and try to pass the buck.

You do not have to have caused the issue to be the one responsible for it. A dog owner is liable for their dog biting someone - they don't have to have made the dog do it.

The best your ex can do is contact his insurers and see if they will deal with it. If not then he will end up sued by the neighbours (if they had insurance claims then it could just be the excess but who knows) and they can then enforce the judgment against him. There is a reason people have insurance and he needs to contact his.

he did then his own insurance could come after him as well [] Insurance doesnt work like that. You pay an insurance company so when you screw up, they sort it out for you.

Insurance most assuredly does work like that. It's a simple contract. Part of which requires the insured does certain things in a certain way in order to enjoy the fact that

Insurance is an incredible thing

If you dig into any insurance policy (aka a "contract") you'll notice it has clauses about informing the insurers about anything which might end up in them paying out. Failure to do so can invalidate a policy and compromise any payments. In situations where the insurer is obliged to payout, they can seek to recover their losses from the person who caused that loss.

"Utmost good faith" is the term you need to google to get up to speed.

Don’t worry OP, I have found the answer

Guys, top tip - if you murder someone DO NOT admit it. Otherwise the police will come after you as well. So don't admit it - it's the perfect legal loophole.

Now you're being ridiculous . Murder is a criminal offence. This is civil liability being discussed. We are trying to keep things sensible here.

Its doesn't matter really if he accepts liability. A fire started on his property, there for his insurance should cover any loses to the neighbour.

Every fire will have a level of investigation, which record the outcome of accidental, deliberate, or unknown and most likely probable cause of the fire.

Tell him if he hasn't to request the fire report. That is the evidence needed around the fire, but ultimately the fire started on his property, his insurance is liable, whether he is at fault or not. Why should the neighbours foot the bill?

@Aderyn19

Thats not quite right. If it could be proved the neighbour had chucked a ciggie over the fence it would be the neighbours responsibility. He probably would be fucked as it could be argued it was a deliberate act

Its also not relevant to the situation here. The evidence is being presented is that the OPs friend was burning garden matter (which he is allowed to do) in a manner that fits with the Fire forensic report. So it wasnt a deliberate act, it came about by the OPs friend's inadverted negligence.

We're told the insurance company is aware. They will have easy acess to the legal expertise necessary. They are best placed to deal with it.

Its not up the the OPs friend to determine how the situation resolved

Surely this is what insurance is for. It may not be his 'fault' but it occurred on his property for which he is presumably liable for the excess at least. Friend should settle right away because going to court is going to cost him a whole lot more.

Its doesn't matter really if he accepts liability. A fire started on his property, there for his insurance should cover any loses to the neighbour.

Complete side-issue - but is this a case of our legal system's debt to Roman law?

@Hazelnutlatteplease

I don't need to check my documents, thanks.

You're mistaken in what you believe constitutes liability, assuming you took note of the 'in many cases' that I mentioned.

If the homeowner has not been negligent in failing to maintain the roof to an acceptable standard then the insurance company can/will refuse the 3rd party claim.

In the case being discussed in this thread, there are many scenarios where it could be found that the fire originated in OP's friend's garden but not necessarily that he, or his insurer, are liable for 3rd party damage.

If someone breaks into your property but you left the door unlocked, the insurance company won't pay out in most cases.

We need the OP to clarify what the insurance company have said - which she is reluctant to do for some untold reason.

@professorslocombe

You have defamed my character by calling me ridiculous when I have shared such a savvy legal tip.

SEE YOU IN COURT

Have you heard of cluedo?

It was the dickhead
In the garden
With the bin

Sorted

ProfessorSlocombe

Dont scaremonger. Whilst all insurances have exclusions, i dont think thats the case here as the OP says the insurance company know about the claim. Unless theres an exclusion that says no burning of waste/bonfires/fire pits (hasn't been in any if my home insurance policies) the OPs friend should be ok.

In the very small chance hes not covered he's only going to know by talking to his insurance company. Not by asking on an internet forum.

I'll contribute to the crowdfund, YassKween.

I thought that was an excellent contribution.

@winewolfhowls
🤣🤣🤣

Complete side-issue - but is this a case of our legal system's debt to Roman law?

Unless I missed something (possible with such a high level of debate ) the OPs case is in England & Wales ? (I really hope they've not been stringing us along and it suddenly turns out it's a Scots case, which might have a completely different angle). If so, Roman law doesn't count. England and Wales are common law jurisdictions with a massive dollop of Norman statute on top. It's most of Europe and the Code Napoleon which hark back to the unhinged (well, by some standards) heyday of "the Empire" (no, not that one . The proper one ....)

Why do people still do the "my friend has a problem..." shtick when they're posting anonymously online anyway?

Dont scaremonger. Whilst all insurances have exclusions, i dont think thats the case here as the OP says the insurance company know about the claim.

The OP has said an awful lot of things, and I stand by my point. "Knowing about" is not the same as discharging the obligation to "keep informed". It might work when a teenager tries to dupe their parent, but not when an insurance company has to pay out more than it might have, had it been properly informed.

So I resent the accusation of "scaremongering" and suggest it's more a reality check. Insurance companies aren't fairy godmothers with a logo and a slogan. They are business, and really, really, really don't like losing money as a result of their clients naivete.

@Hazelnutlatteplease you really need to do some research into liability if you're going to post advice.

@ProfessorSlocombe is correct regarding negligence, etc.

There's loads of information out there on the subject of damage to 3rd party property and insurance.

Try this for a start. It covers the exact scenario you claimed I was wrong about - storm damage to one's own property causing damage to a 3rd party's property.

www.viberts.com/articles/liable-storm-damage-property/

I'll contribute to the crowdfund, YassKween. []I thought that was an excellent contribution.

Me too !

Oops, I see how easy it is to get confused

Yours excellent too, Prof.

@DowntownAbby

Now you are changing the situation.

Yes if you know the roof is in need of repair you wouldnt necessarily be covered.

So if you had several tiles fall off you did nothing about it and a tile fell off and hit a neighbours car you might be in trouble.

If there is no reason to believe there is a problem with the roof and a tile fell off, you absolutely would be covered. And i have seen multiple policies pay out for just these circumstances. Dont scaremonger. I've even known farm insurance pay out for damage from a falling cow and pet insurance for car damage from a deer that was chased across the road by a dog. Insurance pays far more often than it wiggles out of it.

The best thing to happen now is that the OPs friend talks to their insurance company

SchadenfreudePersonified. 13.22.58

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Crying laughing here, thank you.

Is this person the same person as you have posted about in a number of other threads, OP? If so, he does seem to have something of a track record in terms of domestic/ property related mishaps. Perhaps he might like to reconsider his chosen line of work before someone’s house falls down.

If it is another person and you’ve pulled two of these plums in a row, then for goodness sake stop looking for “friends” until you’ve developed a few powers of discernment.

Gotta love these AIBUs. Am I being unreasonable? Universal chorus of yes ( surprisingly politely in this example). OP ignores decent advice and carries on arguing. Grand.