Other owner not adequately insured.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Other owner not adequately insured.

    Hi there,

    There was a leak from the water heater in a flat that I let, the leak caused some damage to two flats below. The owner of one of the flats is claiming for the damage through her insurance.

    The owner of the other flat has contacted me and told me that she only has contents insurance and that her insurance can’t help. She contacted my insurance directly and my insurance wouldn’t speak to her. I contacted my insurance and they said they can’t deal with her directly so can not help.

    I’ve since received an abrupt letter from the lady, she feels that she shouldn’t be paying for repainting when the damage isn’t her fault.

    I’m in need of advice on how to proceed in this matter. I understand her frustration but I also don’t see why I should pay out of my pocket when I’m insured and she wasn’t adequately insured.

    Any help is much appreciated.

    Were you to blame? If so, it will come out of your pocket even if the other person is insured, as their insurer will claim from yours. You do have public liability insurance?

    If you weren't to blame, the neighbour will fail if they try to sue you.


      Also, it is unusual for building insurance not to be the responsibility of the freeholder.


        Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
        Also, it is unusual for building insurance not to be the responsibility of the freeholder.
        Thank you for your response.

        The water heater in my flat leaked, causing water damage to two flats below. The issue is that one of the owners affected below only has contents insurance so she can’t claim through her insurance, and my insurance won’t deal with her as she can’t claim through her insurance as she’s not adequately covered. She would like me to offer a solution, but I think it’s unfair that I should payout to rectify this issue when I have insurance for this kind of issue and the reason it can’t go through our insurance companies is through her not having the correct insurance.

        The flat is leasehold and I have landlords including liability insurance.


          You are only liable for the damage to the flats below if you are negligent.

          Things leak and damage occurs as a consequence.
          You have a duty of care to your neighbours not to allow damage to occur if you can avoid it, not an unlimited liability should something just "happen".

          Without negligence, the neighbours have no claim on you at all.
          Their decision to buy insurance and what it covers is nothing to do with you (and doesn't affect who is liable to pay anything).

          As a solution, I'd be tempted to suggest that she applies the "saving" in insurance premiums over time to the cost of the repair.
          As that was presumably the mental calculation done when deciding to insure only some parts of her property.
          But I wouldn't succumb to that temptation in real life.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).



            Very helpful thanks, fingers crossed this issue will be resolved soon.



              You'd think that HIS pipes were ****, which is why they leaked, and therefore you'd think that he was liable for the consequences, but no. Only if they started leaking, and he ignored it, knowing it would cause an issue, would he be liable.

              Strange how the law works isn't it.

              As an aside you are describing "self insurance".


                So the building is not insured by the landlord, then?


                  Here is a smiliar thread on here -


                  Latest Activity