Who's accidental insurance cover should be claimed on?

[madasafish]

The freeholder of a semi-attached house converted to two flats is telling me that if my ground floor tenanted flat is flooded by his upstairs tenanted flat (eg: upstairs bathroom overflows) then legally I have to claim on my accidental insurance.

This sounds absurd. Is he right?

[jpkeates]

It's not that you "legally" "have to" claim.
You could just pay yourself - there's no obligation to be insured (unless it's part of the lease covenants).

In one sense, they're right, in that you can't simply assume that your costs will be met simply because the water came from upstairs.
Here's the best statement of the position from an insurance broker's perspective - https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/fo...leaks-in-flats

To make a claim on the upstairs owner, you'd be making a claim in Tort, which would, in practice, mean you'd have to show that your losses were caused by negligence (or deliberate action) by someone who owed you a duty of care and that the loss was a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

So, if there was a flood caused by someone leaving a bath running, you might be able to recover your costs (or, theoretically, your insurer could).
But if there was simply a leak in a pipe, it's likely that any claim would fail - because leaks can just happen (no one would expect plumbing to be inspected and routinely maintained).

Flats are also complicated by where the leak occurs - because often the plumbing is in a common area, depending on where the flat boundary is.

[theartfullodger]

There's no legal requirement to claim on any or anyone's insurance. You could simply sue upstairs - after 1st asking them to pay up.

[Section20z]

Ask the buildings insurer, it may well be covered