which insurance company should I claim from??

[moris20]

I have a property which i let out. i have buy to let insurance for it. the property above poured water onto mine causing 20k worth of damage.
my insurance company are stalling because they are saying my property was unnocupied.

I am wondering what i do if my insurance company refuse to pay out. can i claim on the above property's insurance? My water was switched of at the mains and was being regularly visited by an agent who was carrying out viewings so he was also keeping the place warm. a tenant was due to move in a couple of days after the incident.

any help appreciated

[muchlovex]

how ling was it unoccupied for? Check your policy as by Buy to let insurance states the property must not be unoccupied for more than 2 weeks and any claim may be invalided.

Do you have a loss adjuster?

[boxtops]

Was the property above occupied when this happened? That could make a difference - when my neighbours had a leak I claimed off my insurance and they reclaimed off the other people's.

[woozer]

Hi - check the unoccupancy clause in your own insurance policy - they are all different for example mine gives full cover for up to 45 days unoccupancy but there are some that are restricted to seven days with other conditions attached

If your insurance does cover you for this then they should pay the claim but they may then be able to recover their outlay from the owners of the property that the water has leaked from.

If you are not insured under your own policy and the water has come from someone elses property then you should be able to claim against the liability section of their property owners insurance (if they are insured). It should not make any difference to your claim if the other property was unoccupied or not as this is a liability issue for the Third Party. You may also be able to sue for loss of rent if you had a signed contract with a new tenant beofre the damage took place.

If they too are not insured and do not cooperate you may have to sue them.
I may be wrong but I think escapes of water are automatically the liability of the property owner that the water has come from even if they have not been negligent.

[bennhoughton]

most of what woozer says is correct here - check the terms of your insurance for the unoccupancy clause - you should always advise your insurer in any instance when a property becomes unoccupied just to be safe - unoccupied properties pose a significant risk compared to occupied properties.

If the leakage was as a result of the property owners upstairs negligence then you will be able to claim from their PL extension on their home/let property insurance - presuming of course they have this insured - however, if there was no negligence on their behalf - ie they had maintained the property correctly and were not at fault, then this is just something your insurers or you will have to take i am afraid - if there is no negligence there is no liability and no PL policy will pay out

[woozer]

Hi - BH - Hands up you are correct re the liability - I wasnt sure but had an idea that escapes of water were dealt with under strict liability - however I have just found the appeal case confirming Ryland VFletcher would not apply in this case

[bennhoughton]

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc i presume Woozer?