Water damage?

[nicolab6]

Hi - can anyone help me?
An old lady I know rents a flat above a shop. Last week she left the kitchen tap running and fell asleep. We're not sure how long for, but her kitchen was flooded. It was cleared up, but the next day the owner of the shop (her landlord) rang the bell, took her down to his shop and the water had gone through the ceiling, the ceiling tiles had all fallen down and much of his stock was damaged.

Where does she stand, she has no insurance, but can he claim on his?

Thanks in advance... Nicky

[Hawkwalk]

If the landlord has any sense then he will have insurance for his rented flat and his shop so should be covered for this.

[nicolab6]

That's my hope - thanks for the feedback

[Postdog]

That said, the insurance may try to reclaim off her. My insurance did off of someone who damaged my car. Dunno if they got anyway but they said they'd try.

[vivandorron]

Does the 'old lady' have a rental agreement which stipulates that she must insure the flat.? If not, then it is my opinion that the landlord is responsible for the premises and his insurance would provide cover for escape of water which causes unforeseen damage to his property and its contents.

Ron.

[tamborine]

The landlord has property insurance he can claim from.

If the landlord tries to sue his tenant & she has no/little money the landlord aint got much hope and it could be argued the landlord was at fault for renting to 'sleepy' tenant.

[nicolab6]

Would need to check the rental agreement, she has lived there over 30 years, so not sure if there is a recent one. BTW - old lady is my Mother in Law, recently widowed...

[vivandorron]

Has the landlord said anything to indicate that he is likely to hold you mum-in-law responsible for the damage or was he just showing her what had accidentally happened.

It remains my view that the flat is the responsibility of the landlord for insurance purposes unless he has contracted otherwise with m-i-l.

Ron.

[ChuckFickens]

I'd love to see tambo try and stand up in court and say it's the landlords fault for renting to a tenant that sleeps!!

The tenant should have had insurance to cover this. the landlord insures the property to cover against faults in the parts he owns (i.e. burst water pipes) and the structure of the building, the tenant insures what they own or may be responsible for (i.e. if an electric fire owned by the tenant caused a fire or, as in this case, the tenant causes damage by leaving a tap on).

As it stands the landlord should be bale to claim from his insurance, but his insurance will then try and reclaim the money back from your MIL because the damage was caused by her (there is no getting away from this fact)

[Twenty20]

If she has no insurance then she may have to pay out of her own pocket for any damage she may have caused. That's why we take out insurance, in case of accidents.

In reality, I doubt if she will get chased by the LL's insurance company but will probably have to pay any excess that he has had to pay out.

[rowanwitch]

every rental contract I have needed to sign has always included a clause requiring me to take out contents/third party cover...
Landlord insurance is becoming more common though but I suspect they will try to get some or all of the money from the lady in question. The other thing is if it was part of the rental contract and she didn't do it it may be grounds to end the tenency.

[tamborine]

'sleepy tenant' wouldn't need to go to Court as its up to the landlord to check his tenant has the insurance required.

[redman41]

It's part of my tenancy agreement to make sure that the Contents of my Flat are Insured and I must produce evidence of this if demanded by an Official from the Council.
The old Lady in question is probably breaching her Tenancy Agreement if she does not have Home Contents Insurance.

[Old_Geezer]

I'd have expected a claim to be possible. But as your mother seems not to be too wealthy, renting above a shop and all, it has to be limitied interest of anyone to take a claim that far. Cost of doing so for a limited return, I think the insurance company would be prepared to settle for a smaller amount. But it's just a guess on my part.

[vivandorron]

Home contents Insurance would only be in respect of the tenant's items; it would not cover damage to property and items belonging to a third party, unless they were visitors within the Insured's premises. Furthermore there is Not any legal obligation to Insure the contents of one's home.

I find this a very interesting thread and the thought comes to mind that perhaps nicolab6 should now post in AB's 'Insurance' and/or 'Law' section and ask for comments to be posted in this thread. (It's just a thought).

Ron.

[jewellerjim]

if the damage has come from the old lady, and she has no insurance the responsibility lies with her. It is not for the shop owner to have to claim on his insurance, who will only make a claim against the person responsible anyway. I would expect that the old lady will be pursued by the shop tenant or by the courts for recompense, just as the lady would have pursued him should the boot be on the other foot. This reiterates the point that if you cannot afford insurance, you cannot afford to be without it.

[nicolab6]

Thanks all - Ron I've reposted as suggested. She does not have much money (is on housing benefit, pension credit, etc). Thanks again, Nicky

[boxtops]

I agree with jewellerjim, the ultimate liability lies with the person causing the damage by negligence i.e. the old lady.

[karenmac60]

When I rented a flat out my mortgage provider insisted I had to have buildings insurance for the property - and it also had to be specific landlord's insurance. While the landlord probably no longer has a mortgage (if he's owned the property for 30+ years), he really should have cover.

[woozer]

Landlord should claim from his own insurance. His insurer will then examine the possibility of claiming from the tenant - in order to be successful they must prove that the tenant was legally liable for the escape of water, in this case they would need to prove negligence. I dont know if an older person is negligent if they fall asleep. The insurer will also consider the cost of suing against the probability of obtaining a settlement and from what you say they dont stand much chance of making a recovery from your MIL. A little Contents insurance which would have included cover for her Personal Liability as a tenant would have been a good investment and is worth considering for the future as the insurer would pay the claim or pay the cost of defending it and save you all a lot of worry.

[nicolab6]

Thanks to you all for your help