You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'm currently switching between "I'm being unreasonable" and "Nah stuff 'em"
Last Sunday washing machine had a leak and caused downstairs neighbour's ceiling paper to come down. No other lasting damage, walls fine etc. She was/is happy to just repaper and decorate the ceiling. We've had floorboards up dehumidifier going etc.
Now turns out her excess is £500 and estimated cost to do the job is £7-800 her insurance broker says not worth the paperwork and additional costs to premiums. Our insurance said "nope" the flooded not the flooded pays unless you can prove negligence.
Our excess is £100 because we pay more on premium just for this reason. She cheapens her premium by going big on the excess.
I would have paid her excess, had it been reasonable, like mine, but she wants me to pay the whole cost because she won't use her insurance.
Who's unreasonable
Sorry mate, you pissed on her ceiling. Pay up. Get on with your life.
being a grownup sucks.
Go fix her ceiling ?
Happened to my sister, bloke upstairs had a flood. He fixed it for her.
They just happen to be married now !
Our insurance said "nope" the flooded not the flooded pays unless you can prove negligence.
Surely the negligence is beyond doubt. How else is her ceiling supposed to be wet ??
You are, you broke her ceiling so you foot the bill. £700-800 is nowhere near big enough to touch insurance, home insurance is really to cover stuff costing tens of thousands like fire, theft etc.
Surely the negligence is beyond doubt. How else is her ceiling supposed to be wet ??
I don't think you propetly understand negligence. Unless the OP knew the washing machine was going to spring a leak and did nothing to stop it, he's not done anything wrong in terms of negligence.
Morally, I'd be paying. Legally - which is what the liability part of your insurance covers - then no.
Morally it's down to you. Personally I'd find it a bit annoying as I'd never spend £700 decorating my own ceiling and if a neighbour minorly damaged my house I'd just fix it myself and tell them not to worry about it, doesn't meet that goes both ways though. Good neighbours are worth keeping happy.
£700-800 is nowhere near big enough to touch insurance, home insurance is really to cover stuff costing tens of thousands like fire, theft etc.
We claimed about £1800 when a leaky pipe brought down a corner of the kitchen ceiling. Next year's premiums were unaffected. Why would you not claim?
I'd never spend £700 decorating my own ceiling and if a neighbour minorly damaged my house I'd just fix it myself and tell them not to worry about it,
Surely that depends if you can wallpaper or not....
Yeah, going to pay. But will absolutely make sure that she pays halves for all future work. As I've just done decorating myself.
Got to investigate a roof leak, I'd usually just do and make good. But it'll be halfsies from now on.
They just happen to be married now !
It's a bold play but fair play to him.
Do you own your property?
If so pay up in full because it isn't worth having to declare a dispute with a neighbour on a future sale
Marrying her will be more expensive (I'm making an assumption on the "we")
In any other scenario it's your choice; you know your financial situation and we don't, "Yeah, going to pay" would be my choice 🙂
She's being unreasonable. Her fault that she picked a high excess, not yours.
Er, this is a shared property? So communal buildings insurance should be in force? Why does she have a different insurer to you?
That price feels very high for one ceiling. I'd be finding my own decorator and paying him directly.
But yeah, I would expect to pay.
Who wallpapers a ceiling?
I don't think you propetly understand negligence. Unless the OP knew the washing machine was going to spring a leak and did nothing to stop it, he's not done anything wrong in terms of negligence.
MMmmmmm - not quite IMO
Duty of care owed - yes
Duty of care breached - yes (edit - this is where you could argue - there is a reasonableness test to this)
Monetary loss yes
So it meets the 3 part test IMO
She's being unreasonable. Her fault that she picked a high excess, not yours.
But if the washing machine hadn't leaked, there'd be no bill to pay at all.
I don't think you propetly understand negligence. Unless the OP knew the washing machine was going to spring a leak and did nothing to stop it, he's not done anything wrong in terms of negligence.
MMmmmmm - not quite IMO
Duty of care owed - yes
Duty of care breached - yes (edit - this is where you could argue - there is a reasonableness test to this)
Monetary loss yes
So it meets the 3 part test IMO
I'd be arguing the reasonableness test is the sticking point.
OP is liable, and also has a moral duty to make sure his neighbour is not out of pocket.
If excess+additional premiums would be the same or greater than the 7-800 quid, then just giving her the excess leaves her a few hundred out of pocket.
Rule no.1 definitely applies.
I don't think you propetly understand negligence. Unless the OP knew the washing machine was going to spring a leak and did nothing to stop it, he's not done anything wrong in terms of negligence.
MMmmmmm - not quite IMO
Duty of care owed - yes
Duty of care breached - yes (edit - this is where you could argue - there is a reasonableness test to this)
Monetary loss yes
So it meets the 3 part test IMO
I'd be arguing the reasonableness test is the sticking point.
Arguable but far from certain IMO
I would certainly pay the £700. Just think what you would want in that situation.
I am suprised at the OPs insurance answer. I have 3 times had leaks that affected downstairs 2 not significant one that could have led to tens of thousands of pounds of damage ( fortunately we managed to avoid it)
I checked my insurance and I am covered for accidental damage to other properties as far as I can see. I never had to actually use it tho
Genuinely don't know the answer to this but, is there any requirement as with motor policies to declare any 'claims or losses' so the insurer can make a premium calculation? Something about declaring material facts that may affect assessment of risk?