To think my neighbour should be liable for the insurance claim?

[FireAdvice]

Some of you may remember this from when it happened. So had a garden fire a few months ago which started in a shared hedge between me and a neighbour.

I was out at the time, as I left to go out neighbour was on his drive a few foot from the hedge welding/grinding his car. It was baking hot and very dry.

Ten minutes after I left I got a phone call to say the garden was on fire. Loads of damage - insurance claim was 40-50k as we lost a lot of outbuildings and contents. We obviously had to pay excess, our insurance has doubled and it looks like we won't be covered for all the contents.

That afternoon the neighbour was saying sorry and he told the fire brigade he's thrown a piece of very hot metal in the hedge

The fire investigation officer has put in his report that the start of the fire was "undetermined" but that the fire started on the neighbour's side.

My insurance company have employed a solicitors firm to chase uninsured losses via their insurance company. Neighbour and their insurance company are disputing liability and are fixed on the fact that the cause of the fire is undetermined. But apparently fire brigade can only put undetermined or deliberate. Putting undetermined doesn't mean it wasn't his fault, just means it wasn't deliberate.....or can't be proven to be deliberate.

But regardless of how it started surely if a fire started on my neighbour's property (which they can't dispute) and spread to my property then they should be liable? The solicitors reckon that might not be enough to make their insurance pay?

If a tree of mine fell over and damaged a neighbour's property I'd expect my insurance to be paying out? Not my neighbours?

You would be wrong
if your tree falls then each person claims on their own insurance for the damage on their own property

You're not unreasonable. But have you ever heard of an insurance company paying out if there's a chance they can dodge it?

I used to live in a flat. Our washing machine leaked and damaged the ceiling and sofa in the flat below. The lady had to claim of her house insurance. She was’t best pleased though, thinking that we would have to claim of ours.

I'm not surprised by his insurance trying to wriggle out of it. I'm surprised by the legal firm employed by my insurance seemingly not being bothered to fight it.

Maybe that's a bad analogy then, could have sworn I read about that happening once but might be wrong.

OK, I googled about the tree thing and seems it depends if negligence can be proven or not. Maybe it's the same with fires.

I'd say welding your car with sparks going everywhere when it hasn't rained for weeks about 3ft from a conifer hedge and throwing hot metal in it is pretty negligent but guess maybe it's hard to prove.

Legal Framework for Claims Against a Neighbour’s Insurance
To claim off a neighbour’s home insurance, particularly their liability cover, the following key parameters must be met:

1. Proof of Negligence or Liability: The first requirement is to prove the neighbour was negligent or legally liable for the fire. Under UK law, negligence means showing the neighbour failed to take reasonable care to prevent the incident and that failure caused the fire. Examples include failing to maintain electrical wiring or allowing hazardous materials to be improperly stored.
2. Causation: There must be a clear causal link between the neighbour’s actions (or inactions) and the fire. This means proving that the fire directly resulted from the neighbour’s negligence and that the resulting damage to your property was a foreseeable consequence.

It's so annoying that I'm out of pocket!!!!

Playing devils advocate, what if your neighbour didn’t have home insurance? They wouldn’t be able to claim for anything if they didn’t have insurance. I assume they do I just meant there is no law to say they have to have it. Not sure where that would leave you.

Or even if your neighbour didn’t have home insurance but didn’t want to claim for their gardens damage.

I think you can demonstrate both of these points have been met.

Do you have legal cover on your insurance? Is that the same company as are trying not to pursue?

His insurance doesn't cover your property though. A fire could've started in a forest or in another house thirty five miles away but if your house is damaged then it's your insurance you claim on. Unfortunately.

you claim via your insurance and if your insurance company wants to chase up his for their own gain (you btw will never ever see money that they claim from your neighbors insurance company) then that is between the two companies.

yes your claim has gone up and even if the two insurance companies settle your claim will remain up.

and no his insurance does not cover any part of your property. your insurance your property his insurance his.

I appreciate his insurance wouldn’t routinely cover my property but my insurance company initially were very much saying his insurance would have to pay out. Mainly to them but also for stuff like my excess (to me). And that if the claim was ultimately put on his insurance my future premiums would come down.

I do have legal cover, no idea if it’s the same company. Probably.

If the insurance company has employed a legal firm to recover their losses then they clearly believe that there's a legal possibility of whether the neighbour's insurance should pay out. It seems that the issue is whether they can.prove that his actions caused it. I imagine your insurers are wary about incurring further losses if it goes to court. What are they saying are the next steps?

I suggest that given their track record what happens with the insurance isnt an issue for you to bother about.

What you do need to push for is for some sort of anti social behaviour action to be taken so if they so much as strike a match in the garden its off to jail sharpish.

OK, so the fire report hasnt established how the fire started and I dont think anyone suggests its intentional - in this case what it doesnt establish however that your neighbours were negligent in which case your insurers could recover from them.

Pity really that they have insurance!

It's not a bad analogy, if your tree falls on your neighbours property it is your insurance that they would claim on, UNLESS it was during storm with recorded gusts of over 60 mph, then it is an act of god and they would have to claim on their own insurance.

Your neighbour was doing something that produced sparks in hot, dry weather, shouldn't be too hard to prove liability and possibly negligence.

Maybe they don't feel like it's worth taking his insurers to court if there's no solid proof that the fire is his fault - court costs can be astronomical.

I think the issue is that if it goes to court, they have to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that there was negligence, and if the fire service are saying that it didn't happen deliberately, then there may not be a legal claim.

Neighbours’ tree fell in a storm (over height, they’d been spoken to about potentially chopping it a bit), smashed a statue in our garden, they paid. I don’t think they went through their insurance, the excess probably made it pointless.

That's the threshold in a criminal court. In civil court it's balance of probabilities.

Yes - I was (probably wrongly!) assuming that what is basically an arson case would end up in criminal court.

I doubt that would happen, there's been no police involvement - it's a dispute between insurance companies so likely a civil case!

Thanks for clarifying! Shows how much I know 🤣