Is it worth pursuing insurance claim?

[Underit]

Will keep it brief - I’m in two minds whether to pursue some damage to my property.
Gentleman was giving his girlfriend a driving lesson and she mounted the curb and hit the fence to my garden. They knocked on and explained what had happened and he said he was in the trade and asked if I would allow him to repair the damage himself - I agreed. He put a temporary fix in place 2wks later and said he would return with correct tools at a later date to make the repair permanent- he didn’t return. In the meantime strong winds have pulled down the 40ft fence completely and it’s now not repairable - I believe had his girlfriends accident not weakened the fence in the first place the fence wouldn’t have fallen down at all! He is now refusing to accept any liability or carry out any further repairs? I won’t go into specifics but our insurance won’t pay out for the replacement and so I’m left with no fence and an open garden leading onto a main road and quotes to fix from several tradesmen in excess of £1500. I don’t feel it’s fair I have to pay this but don’t know whether it’s worth the headache or how simple it would be to pursue a claim through his car insurance? Any advice would be appreciated as I am just fed up with it and don’t know where I stand. TIA

Do you have proof that it happened and do you have proof that it weakened the fence leading to it falling down?
I’m not asking what you think, I’m asking what you can actually prove

Did your insurance refuse to pay because it's considered wear and tear? How old is the fence?

Given the intervening event of the storm it will be fantastically difficult for you to prove the damage would not have happened were it not for the original damage by the driving instructor’s car.

Well the only proof I have is messages of him admitting the accident happened and photos of before and after the accident. The fence was about 8yrs old I think - it would definitely have needed replacing in the next couple of years but there wasn’t any signs it was just going to blow over.

It’s very rare for an insurance company to pay out for storm damage to a fence-it’s usually excluded

I’m going to have to pay for it myself aren’t I, just annoying because we have had worse storms in the past 8yrs and the fence has never budged. I’m convinced it’s only because it was never repaired properly after the car hit it but I really don’t need the extra stress of fighting a losing battle. Thankyou for all the replies.

Have you not contacted the man again

I would absolutely pursue this. Based on what you said, it should be very straightforward. He probably hasn't declared it to his insurance company. More fool him to not then follow through and fix the fence. Did he give you details of his insurance company? If not, perhaps phone yours for starters- there must be a way to find the appropriate insurance company where the driver hasn't given the details. He cant exactly dispute liability. It's not like your fence could have jumped into the road in front of the car! Subsequent storm damage is irrelevant. He has to pay cost of repairing damage.

I have contacted the man again and said how disappointed I was that he hadn’t followed through with his promise and told him about the subsequent damage (disappearance) of the fence due to him not returning and he basically just said nothing to do with him it was the wind and even if he hadn’t of hit the fence it would have fallen down anyway. I completely disagree with this, however cannot prove either way.

I would absolutely pursue this. Based on what you said, it should be very straightforward

It would be straightforward to claim for the original damage but, in order to claim for the full fence, the OP would have to show that it would have survived the storm if the car hadn't hit it. That would be difficult to prove.

@Underit

I’m going to have to pay for it myself aren’t I, just annoying because we have had worse storms in the past 8yrs and the fence has never budged. I’m convinced it’s only because it was never repaired properly after the car hit it but I really don’t need the extra stress of fighting a losing battle. Thankyou for all the replies.

The previous storms could have weakened it though.

It's like trees that weather several storms and then fall over in a much lesser wind. They are already damaged.

I work in insurance.
Storm damage to fences is generally excluded.
In your case, we would likely send a loss adjuster out to visit. They'd look at the fence, age etc and work out whether the impact damage from the car was the main contributing factor, ie, if it hadn't already been damaged then would the storm have damaged it at all.

@WildImaginings what would happen in my case where the fence is no longer in one piece. It’s 40ft long and it fell onto a public footpath, 2 gentleman nearby saw what happened and knocked on but we couldn’t lift it so we cut it up into 3 pieces to be able to move it. It’s now just in the garden like this.

[quote Underit]@WildImaginings what would happen in my case where the fence is no longer in one piece. It’s 40ft long and it fell onto a public footpath, 2 gentleman nearby saw what happened and knocked on but we couldn’t lift it so we cut it up into 3 pieces to be able to move it. It’s now just in the garden like this.[/quote]
Tricky as it's been cut up. It goes in your favour though that it fell into a public footpath so you couldn't just leave it where it was. Did you take any photos before it was moved/cut up? If so, we'd review the photos to see the condition of the fence.

I'll be honest with you, if the fence is 8 years old you may have trouble as wear and tear/storm damage could be argued by insurers, both of which are excluded.

Your best bet would be if you have good photographs showing the extent of damage from the impact before the temporary repair was carried out. If it shows clear enough and bad enough damage then they may consider. If they only agreed a contribution though then you need to consider your excess, increase in premiums and if it would be worth you claiming.

Sorry my answer is a bit wishy washy, it's really difficult to comment without seeing the extent of damage from the initial impact.

How did a nudge from a car damage 40ft? Seems excessive to me. You should have got the car insurance details at the time and not agreed to a repair. It’s surely not that much to replace it? It’s not worth the hassle in my view. Next time get the insurance details. But your claim sounds excessive to me.

@WildImaginings Her excess woildnt be relevant surely - she's not proposing claiming on her own insurance.

The car damaged the corner - the first 2 panels of the fence which left in unsecured, it then hasn’t been fixed back and secured properly and so when the wind has got hold of it it’s taken down the whole fence. It has snapped the posts all the way down so it now needs replacing completely. I agree though I should have just gone through the car insurance initially and not allowed the man to do the repair himself. I won’t make the same mistake again!

You'd need evidence that but for whatever damage the guy did, the fence wouldn't have come down in the storm.

How strong were the winds? What sort of age was the fence? How much maintenance had you carried out on it over x amount of years? How much damage was caused by the other guy. What "temporary works" did he do.

If he made a claim under his motor insurance policy, these are the types of questions you could expect to be told to answer.

[quote Lobakgo]@WildImaginings Her excess woildnt be relevant surely - she's not proposing claiming on her own insurance.[/quote]
That's not how home insurance claims work unfortunately. The OP mentioned making a claim through her own insurance but that she wasn't sure if her insurers would cover.

You claim on your own insurance, pay your excess and then your insurers solicitors attempt to seek a recovery of costs from the third party insurers. They ask for the excess back but as this is an uninsured loss the third party insurers are under no obligation to pay it. Any reimbursement of excess is done as a 'gesture of goodwill'.

And home insurance recoveries against a third party aren't always guaranteed. A lot of factors come into play. The third party insurers will generally try and wriggle out of any costs they can, especially if they can allege wear and tear.

@kirinm

You'd need evidence that but for whatever damage the guy did, the fence wouldn't have come down in the storm.

How strong were the winds? What sort of age was the fence? How much maintenance had you carried out on it over x amount of years? How much damage was caused by the other guy. What "temporary works" did he do.

If he made a claim under his motor insurance policy, these are the types of questions you could expect to be told to answer.

This sums it up perfectly, better than my babbling! These are likely the kind of questions you would be asked whether you pursued it through your own home insurance or whether you pursued through his motor insurers.

You claim on your own insurance, pay your excess and then your insurers solicitors attempt to seek a recovery of costs from the third party insurers. They ask for the excess back but as this is an uninsured loss the third party insurers are under no obligation to pay it. Any reimbursement of excess is done as a 'gesture of goodwill'.

From a legal perspective, if the third party is liable for your insurance company's costs, they are also liable for your excess.

@prh47bridge

You claim on your own insurance, pay your excess and then your insurers solicitors attempt to seek a recovery of costs from the third party insurers. They ask for the excess back but as this is an uninsured loss the third party insurers are under no obligation to pay it. Any reimbursement of excess is done as a 'gesture of goodwill'.

From a legal perspective, if the third party is liable for your insurance company's costs, they are also liable for your excess.

I work in insurance/recovery.

An excess is an uninsured loss. Theoretically yes- if there's a third party who are settling costs they should also pay back the excess.

The trouble begins where liability is disputed and/or a reduced settlement is agreed based on other contributing factors, eg wear and tear. When this happens, the third party insurers can (and often do) decline to reimburse the excess as they make the argument that the insured benefited from the repairs as they weren't all down to the third party (even if they wouldn't have been needed in the first place if it weren't for the action of the third party!)

It's a murky business and third party insurers/loss adjusters can be ruthless. I have had third party loss adjusters argue over the smallest elements of settlement because they believe their contractors could have done it for X price and could have done a repair rather than a replacement, the insured had undamaged areas replaced because of matching items clauses etc. They then refuse to reimburse the excess or offer just a contribution. Sometimes they offer a contribution of outlays and a contribution of excess separately. Sometimes they just offer a sum first and final offer. It's then down to the insurer if they choose to reimburse the policyholder all of their excess from that sum and take a hit themselves, whether they issue a proportionate sum etc.

It's not as black and white as a third party is involved, you'll get your excess back. I wish it was!

OP hasn't said she's going through her home insurance. In fact she's specifically said they've already refused the claim. She's talking about going to the man's car insurance company. She also has the option to bring a damages claim against him directly.

I agree proving that the fence wouldn't have been blown down anyway is an uphill battle.

@Lobakgo

OP hasn't said she's going through her home insurance. In fact she's specifically said they've already refused the claim. She's talking about going to the man's car insurance company. She also has the option to bring a damages claim against him directly.

I agree proving that the fence wouldn't have been blown down anyway is an uphill battle.

The reasons given by home insurance for refusing a claim (I'm not sure if OP actually tried to make a claim or just got initial advice from home insurers) are likely similar to those motor insurers will try to use.

This is my point. It's not straightforward. It's an uphill battle as you say. It's worth noting WHY home insurance may not cover this and the reasons they'd likely give, because it's directly relevant to how motor insurers will view the circumstances.

If you have the option of claiming through your own home insurance (and I understand OP might not), as long as the excess and increase in premiums etc make it worthwhile then I would always recommend going down this route, even when a recovery is not guaranteed.

MANY third party insurers will try and get out of paying anything they can. They'll agree the lowest contribution they think they can get away with, they'll try and deny things that would have possibly been included through home insurance (matching items etc.) - they're just generally very difficult to deal with.

As I've said, I don't know exactly what OP's home insurers told her. Whether they told her over the phone storm damage to fences isn't covered (it generally isn't) so they probably wouldn't cover damages, or whether a loss adjuster visited and repudiated the claim etc. I personally wouldn't refuse cover on a claim like this with these specific circumstances and the initial damage from impact without a loss adjuster visit and full assessment on site.

OP came here looking for advice and I think it's relevant to try and cover all bases.