Doing without House Insurance

Greenleaf said:
I live in a 300 year old house, the insurance company did ask when it was last reroofed, rewired and replumbed before they offered insurance.
Click to expand...
Indeed- that is correct. Reroofing, rewiring and repluming is required if you want the insurance. Means a total renovation of the house. Manageable for those who have the money. Impossible for those who don't.
 
Eireann said:
Even Brendan has given some fair points, but on one of the key points done a 180 degree in his next post
Click to expand...
Where is this 180° turn?
 
I was told by an insurance company in France that as the home owner I was obliged to have insurance for the building. It was the law.
Now I didn’t research the law but he explained that if my house burned down and I had no insurance to rebuild the state would have to house me, therefore they covered that by making it a law to insure.

Might have been making it up but we did learn that to cancel our insurance and move to a new provider we had to give the current company 3 months notice. It wasn’t strictly like that, we took out new cover, discovered this quirk (to our way of thinking). Wrote to the old insurer and cancelled from the date of the letter and 3 months later they gave us a refund from about a week after the letter was sent.

It’d make sense for the state to require it and frankly where there are party walls it should be a legal requirement. Not sure about stand alone houses.
 

Again, no black and white answer to this. Does my insurance cover me if my neighbour damages my house, yes. Does my insurance cover any damage to his house, not neccessarily. If I'm keeping my property in good order and a leak still occurs, possibly not. Ultimately my insurer will have to check if the damage occurred due to my carelessness, failing to keep my property in good order etc, in effect, was I negligent. If I was, then I'm possibly not covered but still liable.
 
Forgoing contents insurance, accidental damage (including to buildings), low excesses, and other bells and whistles is one thing - many people could cover such eventualities themselves. Few could cover the worst case scenario of their and/or adjacent properties being destroyed or seriously damaged. As such, forgoing buildings insurance and all that it covers would be extremely foolhardy.
 
ClubMan said:
Where is this 180° turn?
Click to expand...
Hi Brendan, no offence, I was using you as an example of a knowledgeable person.

You said if: 'But if your house burns down or is severely damaged in a storm or it damages someone else's house, you could lose everything.'

You mentioned: or if it damages someone else's house, you could lose everything, to me this implies that I could be sued by my neighbour.

In your next post: 'If your house is burned down by a fire in your next door neighbour's house, you will first of all claim against your own insurance and they will settle with you'.

This also means that if an accidental fire started in my house and burned down my neighbour's house, my neighbour would claim on their insurance (of course if they have insurance).

So on one hand you said I would be liable for damage to my neighbour, but on the other hand you said my neighbour would claim off their own insurance (you refer to me, but I am assuming my neighbour and I are equal before the law).
 
Brendan Burgess said:
As you have arrived at this false conclusion from what has been said, it strikes me that you need protection from yourself.

Just take out buildings insurance and don't overthink it as you are tying yourself up in knots.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Hi Brendan

What false conclusion: So this would also mean I wouldn't have a liability to my neighbour? i.e. It is upto them to have their own insurance?

These are two questions or, one question asked in two different ways.

But I am coming to realise my original guess / suspicion of how it works was correct, because as I'm thinking it through the only logical conclusion is that you claim off your own insurance.
 
Eireann said:
You said if: 'But if your house burns down or is severely damaged in a storm or it damages someone else's house, you could lose everything.'
Click to expand...
Yes, you lose everything - which is why you take out insurance to compensate you if that happens.
Eireann said:
So on one hand you said I would be liable for damage to my neighbour, but on the other hand you said my neighbour would claim off their own insurance (you refer to me, but I am assuming my neighbour and I are equal before the law).
Click to expand...
I can only assume that you're being deliberately obtuse and not reading and interpreting such comments in the context of the wider discussion containing clarifying comments from others on the same issue.
 
Thanks, I can see why it may be required in adjoining houses at least.

It does appear to me; in Ireland, the convention is the opposite, you must cover yourself for your own risks and your neighbour must cover themselves for their, however the damage occurs.

This is the same as contents insurance, you get compensated if someone steals something, it doesn't matter who stole it.
 
Eireann said:
But I am coming to realise my original guess / suspicion of how it works was correct, because as I'm thinking it through the only logical conclusion is that you claim off your own insurance.
Click to expand...
Which has been clearly stated several times already. E.g.:
 
DannyBoyD said:
How did you reach this conclusion?
Click to expand...
Through experience. My own place is over 150 years old. I tried to get a new insurance for it after the old one had becomes so expensive that I could not afford it anymore. One company after the other refused me during my search.
After some weeks of searching one company accepted me. I had learnt my lesson and twisted the truth a bit. There was a lot of work done on my place- new pluming and electrics had been put in indeed over the years. But only one part of the roof had been completely replaced. Most of it just got new slates.
Besides my own experience....this is a well known problem as you can see under post 45.
It is still a fact that you don't get an insurance for your house if it is over 100 years old and certain mentioned parts of it have not been replaced within the last 30 years or so.
 
Last edited:
Your neighbour could claim from their insurance and let their insurance handle it. But if you were liable, their insurance company will probably pursue you (or your insurance) for the loss.
 
Hi ClubMan
I replied directly to Brendan's question on what the 180 turn was.

I'm definitely not trying to be obtuse, but if you read through all comments you'll see two points of view, I don't know which is correct, or if both are correct or even both incorrect, so clearly I admit to being ignorant of how house insurance claims work.
 
Read this slowly line by line.

I will start with the conclusion just so you do not get confused. You absolutely need buildings insurance.

1) Your house burns down and does not damage anyone else's
Your insurance company will fix the problem.

2) Your house burns down and damages your neighbour's house
You will be liable for the damage done to their house.
Your insurance company will pay for the damage done to their house

3) Your neighbour's house burns down and damages your house
3A) Neither of you have any insurance
You can claim off your neighbour but they probably won't be able to compensate you.
3B) Your neighbour has insurance but you don't.
You can claim off your neigjbour and their insurance company will compensate you
3C) You have insurance but your neighbour doesn't.
Your insurance company will compensate you and may go after your neighbour
3D) You both have insurance.
Your insurance company will compensate you and then discuss the matter with the other insurance company.

In all cases, you are better off with your own insurance.
 
I worked briefly in Amev General Insurance company.

A woman claimed that their neighbour's dog had come into her garden and destroyed the clothes on the line. The damage was €400 with a €100 excess, so it would have cost us €300 you settle it.

But we told her to claim against the neighbour.
It turned out that the neighbour was insured with us as well and she claimed €400 under the public liability policy, on which there was no excess.

So we would have been better off settling the claim directly.
 
losttheplot said:
Your neighbour could claim from their insurance and let their insurance handle it. But if you were liable, their insurance company will probably pursue you (or your insurance) for the loss.
Click to expand...
Hi
Do you know if that has happened? Do insurance companies chase a homeowner, say through the courts? Will the court not say, you insure against accidents, this was an accident so you cannot pursue someone else for your financial loss? i.e. you took a bet and you lost on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register