You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Right, I know STW always comes good when asked these types of questions so see what you make of this -
Daughter #2 parked at work in private works car park, no 'Parking at owners risk signs up...'. Big wind this afternoon, blows a load of bricks, roof and ridge tiles onto 3 or 4 cars parked next to the wall. No write-offs but lots of repair work needed, spraying, new rear lights, rear screen etc. probably £1500 at main dealer rates. Building bordering the car park is semi derelict and in a poor state. Police turn out but not much interest there. Building owner turns up, buildings are not insured.
Would you claim on buildings owner, car park owner (last resort is own insurance claim) or ?
Any advice from proper or pretend lawyers welcome . . .
Does she have car insurance?
Her car insurance, thats what its there for, and as an act of god it couldnt be insured against by the building owner.
What you need there is atheist buildings insurance.
If it were me, I would claim on own insurance and let them try to pursue the other party if (i) they think there is liability and (ii) they think its worth the effort. In reality I am not sure either is the case.
If I were the other party I might suggest that parking next to a semi-derilict building in poor state of repair in forecast exceptionally high winds at least implies a degree of contributory negligence.
Disclaimers such as "parking at owners risk" etc have no standing in English law. The land owner has a duty of care to anyone who might be reasonable be able to access the land. Having said that it would be up to a court to decide how far that duty extends.
Her insurance.
Approach building owner for costs. If no luck, small claims. Act of god my arse.
.....and as an act of god it couldnt be insured against by the building owner.
Sorry but that's a load of crap.
Its just "weather" the owner is either insured for what happened, or he isn't.
There is no "act of god" exclusion, just stuff that's covered, and stuff that isn't. And every policy is different.
Insurance is not an apportionment of liability it is merely a way of mitigating risk.
Building owner is liable in tort so sue him in the small claims. If daughter is fully comp you may have DAS cover or the like which should pursue recovery for you.
Oh, and...
Her car insurance, thats what its there for, and as an act of god it couldnt be insured against by the building owner.
hah, hah, hah, hah, hah! Her insurance is there to insure the building owner for acts of god eg? Is that the god of dilapidated buildings or the god of negligent landlords? This religion stuff is so confusing.
An act of God is an unforeseeable natural phenomenon. Explained by Lord Hobhouse in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council as describing events;
(i) which involve no human agency
(ii) which is not realistically possible to guard against
(iii) which is due directly and exclusively to natural causes and
(iv) which could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight, plans, and care.
(ii) which is not realistically possible to guard against
Correct building maintenance?
(iii) which is due directly and exclusively to natural causes and
Which it wasn't in this case
(iv) which could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight, plans, and care.
See no 2 above.
Definitely not an act of God!
You ask for armchair lawyers, you get armchair legal advice. 😉
An act of God is an unforeseeable natural phenomenon.
I think the weather forecast foresaw this one.