You mean if you had no fire insurance cover, fire starts in your gaff, and your house was burnt to the ground, along with the one attached to yours, would you be liable for the rebuilding cost of the neighbours house too? Yes.
Plus, you'd have all the costs of the neighbours being rehoused somewhere else while it's being rebuilt. And, if any of them were injured or died, that's your liability too.
Hi
Yes this is what I'm trying to be clear on. This is all hypothetical.
You're saying that if an accidental fire happened in my house (i.e. not leaving a heater going in the bathroom, say a wiring fault or faulty fusebox, that I couldn't have known about, so it not neglience) then a 3rd party could claim against me for the costs involved. This makes perfect sense to me. I then, if I had insurance, would use this to protect myself and if I didn't have insurance than I would be followed personally.
But what protection do I have if I have insurance and my neighbour doesn't. Their house will be burnt to the ground (let's say zero value) the site will be worth say 25% of the value of the house. As they're adjoining, both houses have the save value and I have lost my house as well and have only the 25% site value. Let assume my neighbour has no money except for their house. So I chase my neighbour and therfore the maximum I can get is their 25% site value & I still have my 25% site value, so the most I have now is 50% return on the loss of my house. So if it is a 3rd party type system as with car insurance (as you imply) the most I could get in compensation is 25% from my neighbour and I would more than likely lose 50%.
I believe I could claim on my insurance probably for the rebuild cost of my house. So this at least muddys the water with regard to who is liable for what. If it were 100% like you state then it would have to be a legal requirement for semi-detached and terraced houses to have insurance or otherwise the system would have very little standing.
My guess is that essentially you have protect your own property you have to insure it, but then can you really be liable to a 3rd party if you cause their house to be burnt down (again totally accidentally), as it can't really be one law for one and a different for others?
Now saying all that above I sure that court cases have been fought, say where on property is derelict and say in causing damaging to an adjoining property, e.g. water, chimneys, structural support and the offending property has to rectify this so as to prevent further damage to the neighbour and pay for repairs. So this agrees with your point.
The problem with this attitude is any impression out there that house insurance is somehow optional stands to wreak devastating and life-changing financial consequences on anyone sufficiently optimistic, naive or desperate to pay any heed to it. And the downstream results of any such devastation inevitably falls upon others.
Hi
Thanks, I agree with your opinion. But house insurance is in fact optional, except for mortgage providers requiring it. Imagine you live in a semi-detached house. Based on what you're saying you would claim off your neighbour or their insurance if they cause damage to your property (the origin of the damage, I'm only taking about accidental). What if they actually don't have insurance, they are naive, optimistic, etc. as you say. I'm just asking the question this is all hypthetical; What would you do then?
Chase them in the courts? Maybe they have nothing, it would be a waste of time, even if their house was left almost perfect, the wind direction meant most fire damage occured to your house, because it is a family home you're not going to be able to take it from them.
Do you know if this adjoining neighbour actually has insurance? Is that then optimistic or naive on to assume they do and if the worst happens then you have somebody to claim against?
So the only logical conclusion is that you claim against your insurance for your own property, regardless of who's at fault (although I do think insurers can chase the other party and to and recover some of their loss). Or if I or somebody else does not have insurance, it doesn't matter because you would have to claim off you own insurance anyhow. This is why I am questioning this, I have paid house insurance for a long time, but I wonder if I'm getting anything from it (obviously I had to have it in the past and so did not consider dropping it before). Of course I am ignoring burglary, own damage, water leaks, etc. and the risk of losing my own property.
Now, while I know these things are not black and white, the only replies to what I asked are essentially saying I claim (as the victim) against the offender's insurance. I have never claimed on insurance, so don't know what happens in reality. My belief or guess is that you have to claim against your own insurance (if you have it), but replies seem to say you act like with car insurance, you are a 3rd party and so claim against the other person, so then if they don't have insurance I'm screwed whether I have insurance or not as insurance is optional.
How much would you actually save just having public liability? I have a public liability insurance for a professional activity (very basic, low risk...), it costs nearly half what my house insurance costs.
Thank you, fair point, but public liabilty would be to persons only and would not cover property damage to an adjoining house. Plus my guess on this stuff if when you try to go away from a standard policy you lose value for money because you will probably be charged even more for less.
You need public liability, think you can only get that with house In surance. If a slate falls off your roof and hits passerby or a neighbour's child falls down stairs, you could be sued.
Hi, thanks.
While I don't doubt what you've said, is this actual fact?
I think you are probably right regarding the slate.
If the child was on your property, was uninvited and injured totally by accident, no neglience on your part, would the property owner be liable?
I don't understand what this means.
What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
It sounds nuts so far.
Does house insurance generally operate by you claiming against your own insurance for anything that happens to you, i.e. it's standalone, you are protected against your losses and any liability to 3rd parties, or:
Does it work, as with car insurance, where the victim's losses are covered by the offender's insurance, i.e. 3rd parties are covered by the your insurance and you can likewise claim others for you losses.