Insurance claim for house 2 years later

[blouseybrown]

I’m trying to get some advice for a friend.

Her son, who we’ll call Tom, and two friends, who we’ll call Dick and Harry, were smoking at Dick’s (rented) home. Long story short the house caught fire and understandably the owners are claiming against Dick’s father’s insurance.

Tom, Dick & Harry received solicitor’s letters this week asking them to pass the letter on to their insurers (none of them own property, therefore no insurance held by them) and to confirm they accept liability.

Dick’s father’s insurers feel he (the father) is not liable (as he was away from the property at the time) and liability lies with Tom, Dick and Harry, who were age 19 at the time of the incident, two years ago.

Dick’s father’s insurance covers those who live in the house, so Dick is covered. However Tom’s parents home insurance has changed since 2022 as they moved house. Neither insurers will accept a claim as claims have to be made within 45 days of an incident, which clearly this is not, and the new company will not cover them as they weren’t insured with them at the time of the incident. Harry’s parents also rent their home and so don’t have any insurance to cover this.

This is an incredibly stressful situation for all concerned and we have every sympathy for the owners of the damaged property as well as Dick’s father who has been dealing with this for the past two years.

Is there anyone who could give any advice on this? The claim is for over £220,000.

The landlord of the rented home should have the insurance?

Owner claims against their landlord insurance??

Landlord would have buildings insurance but tenants would be expected to have their own contents insurance

Their insurers are claiming against the renter, whose insurance want to claim off Tom, Dick or Harry.

The Landlord owns the building so his insurance should cover
However by smoking the tenancy agreement may have been breached (depending on what it says)

Yes this is the case. However landlord’s insurers are claiming from the renter’s insurance, who in turn want to claim off Tom, Dick & Harry.

Exactly this. I believe the rental agreement stipulated no smoking. However the two visiting friends were invited to smoke in the home by Dick.

They can try but if t d and h have zero insurance and zero assets then there will be zero

But will they not just sue T, D and H?

But if the 3 lads don't have any money or assets they won't have any money to pay out if they are sued

Wouldn’t they need to pay something monthly for example?

If Dick is the one on The Tenancy agreement he is the one liable I think, although I am not a lawyer.

this sounds a bit silly. Most individuals (aside from trades people) have insurance for acts or omissions whilst out in the world going about their daily lives.

Secondly the parents of the nineteen year olds cannot be held liable for anything their adult children did.

The insurance company sending out letters to seemingly all and sundry, have only one course of action which is to sue the three 19 year olds for negligence.

But only the landlords insurance could do that.

They would have to prove that all three were negligent in extinguishing a cigarette or cigarettes.

So the best thing to do is reply that there is no insurance cover available regarding the matter and that, the sons in question were not the guilty party.

IANAL and hope someone who is will come along.

The costs of suing someone with no assets are prohibitive.

Yet again we have this idea that insurance magically takes away liability. It doesn't. The landlord's insurers are entitled to claim from those who caused the fire.

the parents of the nineteen year olds cannot be held liable for anything their adult children did

Correct. However, the OP reads as if Dick's father was the tenant. If that is so, he may have some liability.

So the best thing to do is reply that there is no insurance cover available regarding the matter and that, the sons in question were not the guilty party

From the OP, it sounds like the sons did cause the fire, so I wouldn't try to deny that. However, if the insurers realise that they have no insurance cover and no assets, they may back off.

The costs of suing someone with no assets are prohibitive

There may be extra costs to enforce judgement, but the cost of taking legal action against someone is the same regardless of whether they have any assets. The insurers may decide not to sue if they realise that those who caused the fire cannot pay, but this is not guaranteed.

@prh47bridge was hoping you would show up.

@blouseybrown he is a solicitor so there you go.

@prh47bridge Thanks for this information, it’s really helpful. Yes, Dick’s father is the tenant.