Arson attack

V.W.L 11

Hi all,just a query regarding the above, a friends car was damaged by fire from another vehicle, it was arson,the friends car was uninsured and the person whose car was on fire had there insurance company contact the person in question, they were told as it was arson the insurance won't be paying out, anyone have a similar experience or advice????

oldyouth

The owner of the car that went on fire was not negligent, so owes no responsibility for damage to other vehicles

fmcg_scribe

oldyouth wrote: »

The owner of the car that went on fire was not negligent, so owes no responsibility for damage to other vehicles

Agreed.

OP's chum might feel unlucky but it's unacceptable to have an uninsured car. On this occasion, the uninsured driver was caught out but not by the gardai.

djimi

fmcg_scribe wrote: »

OP's chum might feel unlucky but it's unacceptable to have an uninsured car. On this occasion, the uninsured driver was caught out but not by the gardai.

Thats assuming it happened in a public place. The car in question could have been parked on private property, in which case its not required to be insured.

fmcg_scribe

djimi wrote: »

Thats assuming it happened in a public place. The car in question could have been parked on private property, in which case its not required to be insured.

That is a possibility but then there might be questions about whether the car is taxed or declared off road.

UK takes a tough line on this - unless a car is officially declared off road, it must be insured:
www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/c_motor_insurance.pdf

Going back to OP's question, this link suggests that you could claim off the other driver's insurance but you're position would be weakened if your own car is not insured and was parked in a public place:
http://www.consumerhelp.ie/car-insurance

Crasp

Surely the second car should be covered by third party Insurance from the first car?

djimi

fmcg_scribe wrote: »

That is a possibility but then there might be questions about whether the car is taxed or declared off road.

Questions which would be in no way relevant to the situation at hand.

djimi

Crasp wrote: »

Surely the second car should be covered by third party Insurance from the first car?

I think what the insurers are claiming is that because it is an arson attack the policy holder is not liable for the damage and therefore they are not liable to pay third party costs that result from said damage.

fmcg_scribe

djimi wrote: »

Questions which would be in no way relevant to the situation at hand.

If the car is effectively "off road" and was parked on private property, I agree with you up to a point. However, if the car was on a public road and was being driven as an uninsured car, it's best not to get insurance companies, loss adjusters, and lawyers involved.

djimi

fmcg_scribe wrote: »

If the car is effectively "off road" and was parked on private property, I agree with you up to a point. However, if the car was on a public road and was being driven as an uninsured car, it's best not to get insurance companies, loss adjusters, and lawyers involved.

Agreed. I was merely commenting on your assumption that it was the latter, and presenting the case that the car could have been parked on private property and as such fully compliant with the law regarding insurance.

galwaytt

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

Hi all,just a query regarding the above, a friends car was damaged by fire from another vehicle, it was arson,the friends car was uninsured and the person whose car was on fire had there insurance company contact the person in question, they were told as it was arson the insurance won't be paying out, anyone have a similar experience or advice????

...sorry, but I'd be fighting that one.

If the company are paying out for the insured's car, then, by dint of their car being the cause of your friends' car getting damaged, then they are liable. Who started the fire is irrelevant. The fire 'belonged' (if such a thing is possible) to the original car set alight. If that hadn't happened, your friends' would still be intact.

I think the term involved here is subrogation.

Keith186

^^Has to be negligence though or its tough ****.

OP's friend can go after the arsonist for damages if they know who done it.

goz83

Even if the car was not taxed and insured and was parked on a public road, that should not have any impact on a claim against the policy on the attacked car. If an insured driver were to hit an uninsured, untaxed, no nct car, the policy on the insured car would still be used to pay damages to the uninsured car. I think the same should apply in this case. Someones property was damaged by an insured item. The damages should be paid. I would fight this.

galwaytt

goz83 wrote: »

Even if the car was not taxed and insured and was parked on a public road, that should not have any impact on a claim against the policy on the attacked car. If an insured driver were to hit an uninsured, untaxed, no nct car, the policy on the insured car would still be used to pay damages to the uninsured car. I think the same should apply in this case. Someones property was damaged by an insured item. The damages should be paid. I would fight this.

Absolutely.

I'm in the middle of a brouhahah in a not-dissimilar situation atmo, where a party who hit our car doesn't deny doing so - but does deny it was their fault. They are saying that because they hit our car whilst trying to avoid hitting a Other one, that we should sue the party they avoided hitting !! :eek::eek: UFB.

Imho, the policy of subrogation applies: they pay me for the damage they caused me (wrote of the car actually... ) and they in turn can go after whomever they believe put them in that position.

Either way, their insured client hit me - and OP's insured client was the (knock-on) cause of his friends' car getting toasted.

Simples. Imho at any rate........

fmcg_scribe

At the risk of embarrassing OP's friend, OP might help the discussion by providing more details about friend's car at the the time of the fire, such as was it parked on private property, did friend ever have an insurance policy on the car, was it effectively "off road", and what was its NCT and tax status?

Did some digging earlier about the stance of car insurance underwriters on damage from arson attacks. In some counties at least, some insurers are cagey about this because the car owner/policy holder might have committed the arson as opposed to the damage being caused by a malicious arson attack by a third party.

For a policy holder in dispute with his or her insurer about liability for compensation from an arson attack, things could boil down to terms and exclusions in the policy and having good legal representation if insurer keeps pushing back.

V.W.L 11

thanks for all the replies lads,i'll try and explain as best as I can going forward,the vehicle belonging to my friendfrom a legal point of view was on a public road (outside their gate) it was also taxed and nct'd but insurance was 14 days out due to various issues it wasn't renewed at the renewal date for reasons unknown to myself at the time of writing,the "offending" vehicle's insurer's deny liability on the grounds of arson,the M.I.B.I have the same stance.

As for the ALLEGED arsonist he has been identified,gardai are looking into it,but at present nothing concrete,investigation ongoing,the individual who is believed to be responsible is a minor,there was 3 vehicle's including my friends one torched but this said individual denies torching the car next to my friends one,the post-mortem on this one has yet to begin really,if those at a loss as a result of someone else's antics (i.e arson) who must pick up the pieces,is this "no liability" issue for arson enshrined in legislation?if so can someone post a link???

Thanks
V.W.L 11

Stheno

Slightly off topic, but if the OPs friends car had been insured in this instance would their own insurance company pay out on the policy?

I do agree that it seems strange that the insurance company are not paying out, though I've read somewhere before that if your house goes on fire and burns down your neighbours as well, it's their house insurance they claim off, not yours.

V.W.L 11

Stheno wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but if the OPs friends car had been insured in this instance would their own insurance company pay out on the policy?

I do agree that it seems strange that the insurance company are not paying out, though I've read somewhere before that if your house goes on fire and burns down your neighbours as well, it's their house insurance they claim off, not yours.

the insurance company for the car which was set alight along side my friends (Allianz) said they would need to claim from their own policy,when informed no insurance was in force,they were told (in my own words) tough luck!!!!!the only winners of this will be the people insured with Allianz as it is widely believed but not able to prove that they themselves set their own (14 year old) car alight upon seeing the other vehicle 50 yards away engulfed,the events of others just don't stack up,the first car that was set on fire was stolen and then just "at random" another car out of 30 in the car park was set alight,there's more to this than meets the eye clearly but this could take days,weeks,months to unfold.

corktina

The damage to your friends car was caused by the arsonist, not the owner of the other car.... you don't have a claim against the other owner .

oldyouth

galwaytt wrote: »

...sorry, but I'd be fighting that one.

If the company are paying out for the insured's car, then, by dint of their car being the cause of your friends' car getting damaged, then they are liable. Who started the fire is irrelevant. The fire 'belonged' (if such a thing is possible) to the original car set alight. If that hadn't happened, your friends' would still be intact.

I think the term involved here is subrogation.

Subrogation is not involved here. Different meaning altogether. The car where the fire originated did not cause the problem, the arsonist did. The original car presented no hazard to other persons. The owner of the original car was not negligent and that is all that his insurers are concerned with.

fmcg_scribe

Stheno wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but if the OPs friends car had been insured in this instance would their own insurance company pay out on the policy?

I do agree that it seems strange that the insurance company are not paying out, though I've read somewhere before that if your house goes on fire and burns down your neighbours as well, it's their house insurance they claim off, not yours.

You raise an interesting question. The benefit of having car insurance is that your insurer would be arguing your case with the other insurer. If you don't have an insurer to argue your case, I suppose that you would need an ambulance chasing lawyer to argue your case.

fmcg_scribe

oldyouth wrote: »

Subrogation is not involved here. Different meaning altogether. The car where the fire originated did not cause the problem, the arsonist did. The original car presented no hazard to other persons. The owner of the original car was not negligent and that is all that his insurers are concerned with.

Agreed. If, say, the engine of the other car had burst into fire (for whatever reason) and damaged other cars nearby, the outlook might be more positive for the OP's friend.

oldyouth

Stheno wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but if the OPs friends car had been insured in this instance would their own insurance company pay out on the policy?

I do agree that it seems strange that the insurance company are not paying out, though I've read somewhere before that if your house goes on fire and burns down your neighbours as well, it's their house insurance they claim off, not yours.

If the OPs friend had Fire & Theft, then his insurance would pay, yes.

Nobody can claim for a vehicle under their own house insurance

V.W.L 11

corktina wrote: »

The damage to your friends car was caused by the arsonist, not the owner of the other car.... you don't have a claim against the other owner .

I'm lead to believe they are arguing on the grounds that the burned out car was insured as a car GARAGED AT NIGHT whereas it was on a public road but Insurers like get out clauses

Stheno

oldyouth wrote: »

If the OPs friend had Fire & Theft, then his insurance would pay, yes.

Nobody can claim for a vehicle under their own house insurance

No in relation to the house insurance I meant if your house burnt down and took the neighbours with it

fmcg_scribe

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

thanks for all the replies lads,i'll try and explain as best as I can going forward,the vehicle belonging to my friendfrom a legal point of view was on a public road (outside their gate) it was also taxed and nct'd but insurance was 14 days out due to various issues it wasn't renewed at the renewal date for reasons unknown to myself at the time of writing,the "offending" vehicle's insurer's deny liability on the grounds of arson,the M.I.B.I have the same stance.

As for the ALLEGED arsonist he has been identified,gardai are looking into it,but at present nothing concrete,investigation ongoing,the individual who is believed to be responsible is a minor,there was 3 vehicle's including my friends one torched but this said individual denies torching the car next to my friends one,the post-mortem on this one has yet to begin really,if those at a loss as a result of someone else's antics (i.e arson) who must pick up the pieces,is this "no liability" issue for arson enshrined in legislation?if so can someone post a link???

Thanks
V.W.L 11

Thanks for the clarification. You've put a different slant on some things. However, unless a good lawyer can spot a loophole somewhere, I'm not sure that your friend will get any compensation.

oldyouth

Stheno wrote: »

No in relation to the house insurance I meant if your house burnt down and took the neighbours with it

Unless your neighbour was negligent in causing the fire, your neighbours house insurance will not cover your property

djimi

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

I'm lead to believe they are arguing on the grounds that the burned out car was insured as a car GARAGED AT NIGHT whereas it was on a public road but Insurers like get out clauses

The other car you mean? That wouldnt matter; there are no get out clauses when it comes to a third party claim; the specifics of the policy are between the policy holder and the insurer, third party claims are paid regardless.

If the insurer is refusing to pay out it is because they believe they do not have liability towards your friend, not because of a technicality in the policy.

If MIBI agree with the insurer then its entirely probable they are correct.

V.W.L 11

djimi wrote: »

The other car you mean? That wouldnt matter; there are no get out clauses when it comes to a third party claim; the specifics of the policy are between the policy holder and the insurer, third party claims are paid regardless.

If the insurer is refusing to pay out it is because they believe they do not have liability towards your friend, not because of a technicality in the policy.

If MIBI agree with the insurer then its entirely probable they are correct.

yes the car that was burned out next to my friends,from the looks of it they are the ones left to pick up a 10k tab because of some stupid pyromaniac :mad:

goz83

Hmmmm. If MIBI are backing up the insurer, there is very little to argue. So, maybe the parent(s) of the minor arsonist will be held liable.

V.W.L 11

goz83 wrote: »

Hmmmm. If MIBI are backing up the insurer, there is very little to argue. So, maybe the parent(s) of the minor arsonist will be held liable.

The parents have only said it's nothing to do with them,that's it,not sure can a parent be held responsible for a 17 year old actions from a financial point of view with regards to any arson/criminal damage

galwaytt

oldyouth wrote: »

Subrogation is not involved here. Different meaning altogether. The car where the fire originated did not cause the problem, the arsonist did. The original car presented no hazard to other persons. The owner of the original car was not negligent and that is all that his insurers are concerned with.

Well have to agree to disagree on that. How the original car caught fire is irrelevant. All that matters to OP is that his car would not have burnt if the other was not alight.

fmcg_scribe

goz83 wrote: »

Hmmmm. If MIBI are backing up the insurer, there is very little to argue. So, maybe the parent(s) of the minor arsonist will be held liable.

Indeed.

It could be argued that the arsonist (and by extension his parents because he is a minor) is the true third party in this case.

Unless it could be proved that the owner of the car that was attacked has, say, criminal connections or committed some crime against the arsonist or was responsible for setting fire to his or her own car, it's going to be virtually impossible to claim off that car's insurance policy. Perhaps the garda investigation will turn up some interesting connection between the arsonist and the owner of the other car but that's a long shot.

I suspect that nine times out of 10, a car owner caught in this position would have to claim off their own insurance policy and thus lose most or all of their NCB.

OP's friend is unlucky that there was no insurance policy in force on his car at the time of the arson attack.

fmcg_scribe

galwaytt wrote: »

Well have to agree to disagree on that. How the original car caught fire is irrelevant. All that matters to OP is that his car would not have burnt if the other was not alight.

I'm with oldyouth on this - how that car "caught fire" is material to the whole case.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ardle1

Crasp wrote: »

Surely the second car should be covered by third party Insurance from the first car?

No way Hosé:pac:

djimi wrote: »

I think what the insurers are claiming is that because it is an arson attack the policy holder is not liable for the damage and therefore they are not liable to pay third party costs that result from said damage.

Absolutely:)

Ball Busted, Done and Dusted... NNNNNNNNNNEXT:cool:

Cookie_Monster

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

The parents have only said it's nothing to do with them,that's it,not sure can a parent be held responsible for a 17 year old actions from a financial point of view with regards to any arson/criminal damage

it's everything to do with them, they are responsible for their child until such time that he is an adult. They're the ones that need to be chased here.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

oldyouth

galwaytt wrote: »

Well have to agree to disagree on that. How the original car caught fire is irrelevant. All that matters to OP is that his car would not have burnt if the other was not alight.

So advise me where the originators car insurance will cover the 2nd car? The own damage, fire and theft sections only cover the subject matter of the policy (insured vehicle) and the third party section is only concerned with the the insureds negligent use or ownership of the vehicle.

V.W.L 11

I hope to know more today as every avenue is being pursued for recovery of the value of the car,my understanding (via hearsay) is that both parents are on welfare and that the minor has a history of this nature, never heard of insurers not being liable to a third party though but arson is a different game altogether

oldyouth

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

I hope to know more today as every avenue is being pursued for recovery of the value of the car,my understanding (via hearsay) is that both parents are on welfare and that the minor has a history of this nature, never heard of insurers not being liable to a third party though but arson is a different game altogether

Liable means to be responsible for your actions. The original car owner did nothing here to cause a loss to your friends car. The car simply being there in the 1st place had nothing to do with the fire damage. The arsonist holds sole responsibility and the original car owner had no influence over that

V.W.L 11

The alleged arsonist has now said of the vehicles burned out on the morning in question the one next to my friends car was nothing to do with him,he admitted trying and failing to steal it but claims he didn't set it alight.

djimi

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

The alleged arsonist has now said of the vehicles burned out on the morning in question the one next to my friends car was nothing to do with him,he admitted trying and failing to steal it but claims he didn't set it alight.

Are the Gardai buying that? It sounds about as far from a credible story as you can get!

V.W.L 11

djimi wrote: »

Are the Gardai buying that? It sounds about as far from a credible story as you can get!

I'm not aware of the stance of the gardai to that,this situation is still very raw and god knows what'll come next,i'm only getting the info bit by bit

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

_Kaiser_

First off, sorry to hear about your friends troubles OP - it's a ****ty situation whenever you're trying to sort an insurance claim but even more so in this case.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that none of the owners of the damaged/destroyed cars are to blame here thus each insurer will only pay for their client's vehicle.... unfortunately your friend was uninsured so that leaves him out of pocket

The only way to recoup this I think would be through a civil/criminal case against the arsonist (or his parents as his legally responsible guardians), but if they're not working/on welfare I don't think that'll work either.

As I say, I'm no expert but on the face of it, I can't see where the money is going to come from.

Little CuChulainn

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A 17 year old who is stealing and setting fire to cars is likely to be unsuitable for the Juvenile Diversion Program at this stage.

V.W.L 11

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

A 17 year old who is stealing and setting fire to cars is likely to be unsuitable for the Juvenile Diversion Program at this stage.

He has a chequered history of it even at the tender age he is,it's a 3-4 year thing from what i hear

V.W.L 11

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

First off, sorry to hear about your friends troubles OP - it's a ****ty situation whenever you're trying to sort an insurance claim but even more so in this case.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that none of the owners of the damaged/destroyed cars are to blame here thus each insurer will only pay for their client's vehicle.... unfortunately your friend was uninsured so that leaves him out of pocket

The only way to recoup this I think would be through a civil/criminal case against the arsonist (or his parents as his legally responsible guardians), but if they're not working/on welfare I don't think that'll work either.

As I say, I'm no expert but on the face of it, I can't see where the money is going to come from.

It must be the only way a third party isn't compensated for a loss,there's little or no chance of getting the money for the car it appears even if there's a successful prosecution it won't be on his permanent record i think due to his age so in the unlikely even he doesn't reoffend he could yet end up in templemore himself ffs

corktina

I think it's rather rich that someone with no insurance is trying to claim off the policy of someone who has! The problem here is that the car wasn't insured. The fire wasn't the other guys fault and that the second car wasn't insured isn't his fault either.

V.W.L 11

corktina wrote: »

I think it's rather rich that someone with no insurance is trying to claim off the policy of someone who has! The problem here is that the car wasn't insured. The fire wasn't the other guys fault and that the second car wasn't insured isn't his fault either.

it aint the only car in Ireland without insurance on a public street/road!i'll say no more on that issue,its separate to the matter at hand