Caravan Insurance - Is It Really Nesessary

[seth1]

Hi Dusty please read the question,"is caravan insurance really nessasary"A seperate form of caravan insurance is not because every insurance policy at least that ive had covers the van as long as its coupled to the car.Whether a persons decides not to have it is up to them.Some people may financially may be able to take a 15k hit on losing a van,who knows.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Seth,

I think you are splitting hairs.

Third party insurance is provided by the tow vehicle's insurance to meet the UK's statutory requirement for that cover whilst the caravan is being towed on the public highways.

The insurance industry places a duty on the policy holder to inform the company of any changes or modifications to the basic vehicle, such as the addition of a tow bar to tow a caravan. At their discretion they can levy additional premiums, or charge admin costs to record the notice of change.

It is probable that whilst the are required to provide third party cover for the vehicle, if they have not been informed of the change, they may try to recover their costs from the insured.

The OP is clearly interested in the cover required whilst the caravan in storage or is being used on site when it is not connected to the tow vehicle.

Currently there is no statutory requirement for a caravan owner to hold a separate insurance policy for the unhitched caravan. If the owner feels they can stand the potential loss if it is stolen or damaged, that is their choice. However an this is increasingly a concern. Can the caravan owner stand the costs if a claim is made against them for injury/damages because something on the caravan failed, or it was not secured. of as a result of an incident the caravan in some way adversely affects someone else or their property.

Such actions are on the increase because of the No Win No Fee ambulance chaser companies who seem intent of driving up insurance claims and costs.

It is the owner's prerogative if they wish a separate insurance policy on their belongings, but in my opinion they are ill advised to decline such a policy.

 

[Dustydog]

Hello Seth,

I think you are splitting hairs.

Third party insurance is provided by the tow vehicle's insurance to meet the UK's statutory requirement for that cover whilst the caravan is being towed on the public highways.

The insurance industry places a duty on the policy holder to inform the company of any changes or modifications to the basic vehicle, such as the addition of a tow bar to tow a caravan. At their discretion they can levy additional premiums, or charge admin costs to record the notice of change.

It is probable that whilst the are required to provide third party cover for the vehicle, if they have not been informed of the change, they may try to recover their costs from the insured.

The OP is clearly interested in the cover required whilst the caravan in storage or is being used on site when it is not connected to the tow vehicle.

Currently there is no statutory requirement for a caravan owner to hold a separate insurance policy for the unhitched caravan. If the owner feels they can stand the potential loss if it is stolen or damaged, that is their choice. However an this is increasingly a concern. Can the caravan owner stand the costs if a claim is made against them for injury/damages because something on the caravan failed, or it was not secured. of as a result of an incident the caravan in some way adversely affects someone else or their property.

Such actions are on the increase because of the No Win No Fee ambulance chaser companies who seem intent of driving up insurance claims and costs.

It is the owner's prerogative if they wish a separate insurance policy on their belongings, but in my opinion they are ill advised to decline such a policy.

Thankyou John
You took the words out my keyboard!

 

[Surfer]

If the first caravan that caught fire caused the caravan next door to catch fire, then surely the owner of the caravan parked next door would claim against the first caravan to catch fire? The caravan owner next to the second one to catch fire would claim against the second caravan and so on with the third and fourth caravan to catch fire. Could this assumption be correct?

 

[ProfJohnL]

If the first caravan that caught fire caused the caravan next door to catch fire, then surely the owner of the caravan parked next door would claim against the first caravan to catch fire? The caravan owner next to the second one to catch fire would claim against the second caravan and so on with the third and fourth caravan to catch fire. Could this assumption be correct?

In some cases that would be the case. but each case would need to considered on its own merits. Perhaps Raywood has a view on this one.

 

[Lutz]

It's compulsory throughout Europe to have third party insurance for towing a caravan - but in the UK that's provided free of charge by the car insurer - although one or two insurers have started making a small charge.

I'd just like to add that, on the Continent, the caravan would have to have its own third party insurance if parked on a public highway without being attached to the towing vehicle. UK car insurance policies would not cover such a situation.

 

[Dustydog]

If the first caravan that caught fire caused the caravan next door to catch fire, then surely the owner of the caravan parked next door would claim against the first caravan to catch fire? The caravan owner next to the second one to catch fire would claim against the second caravan and so on with the third and fourth caravan to catch fire. Could this assumption be correct?

In some cases that would be the case. but each case would need to considered on its own merits. Perhaps Raywood has a view on this one.

According to Surfer the owner of the storage site invited the people to the party at the site. The inference is, and I have seen no evidence yet, the alleged Chinese lantern that may have caused the fire was set off by the party members.

There's an old Law case. Ryland v Fletcher. Basically if you allow something onto your land and it causes damage to another party then you become legally liable for such damage. That's putting it simply of course.

In the situation Surfer mentions, each caravan owner , in turn would have to be shown to have been legally negligent in allowing his /her burning caravan to set fire to the next etc.
In essence it must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a party did something demonstrable that caused damage to another's property thus making that person negligent an legally liable in the eyes of an English Court.

 

[Dustydog]

If the first caravan that caught fire caused the caravan next door to catch fire, then surely the owner of the caravan parked next door would claim against the first caravan to catch fire? The caravan owner next to the second one to catch fire would claim against the second caravan and so on with the third and fourth caravan to catch fire. Could this assumption be correct?

In some cases that would be the case. but each case would need to considered on its own merits. Perhaps Raywood has a view on this one.

According to Surfer the owner of the storage site invited the people to the party at the site. The inference is, and I have seen no evidence yet, the alleged Chinese lantern that may have caused the fire was set off by the party members.

There's an old Law case. Ryland v Fletcher. Basically if you allow something onto your land and it causes damage to another party then you become legally liable for such damage. That's putting it simply of course.

In the situation Surfer mentions, each caravan owner , in turn would have to be shown to have been legally negligent in allowing his /her burning caravan to set fire to the next etc.
In essence it must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a party did something demonstrable that caused damage to another's property thus making that person negligent an legally liable in the eyes of an English Court.

 

[seth1]

Im spliting hairs!Brillant John L.I dont see after rereading the four or so pages anything that relates to a caravan whilst in storage,likewise Dusty i dont see any mention of travelling to Europe so lets keep things in the same context for the poster.The joys of this forum,a simple question with as the poster already knows-a one line answer,yes legally as we all know too, answer gets blown as normal out of size.Ive been caravanning now for ten years and in all that time ive never once been asked for my insurance certificate by a site owner so really speaking it would seem their not to bothered either.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Seth,

May I remind you the headline for this topic reads:-

"Caravan Insurance - Is It Really Nesessary"

Bertie then goes on to explain his take on the situation, which received one direct reply from Raywood.

Surfer then raised the question about insurance for chain reaction fire damage to caravans ON SITE. It is reasonable to assume "on site" means off the public highway and disconnected from the car thus the car insurance has no part to play in this scenario. This in my view is a relevant subject matter in light of the topic headline.

Dusty will have to confirm his intention, but I assume he and Lutz were simply advising of what is require if you go on the continent, and it is sound advice for those who are contemplating traveling abroad, and its relevant to the topic heading.

If you feel the thread is inappropriate then please ask the mods to review it.

 

[Parksy]

Im spliting hairs!Brillant John L.I dont see after rereading the four or so pages anything that relates to a caravan whilst in storage,likewise Dusty i dont see any mention of travelling to Europe so lets keep things in the same context for the poster.The joys of this forum,a simple question with as the poster already knows-a one line answer,yes legally as we all know too, answer gets blown as normal out of size.Ive been caravanning now for ten years and in all that time ive never once been asked for my insurance certificate by a site owner so really speaking it would seem their not to bothered either.

I'm beginning to notice little signs of antagonism creeping in to this thread. People have differing opinions but please let's not allow this topic to develop into an row between members, thanks.

 

[Dustydog]

"Caravan Insurance - Is It Really Nesessary"

Morning Seth,

I've re read the whole thread and for once dare I say some very intelligent advice has been forthcoming.
As members of the EU I consider it very reasonable to also consider European requirements in the answer to Bertie's question.
It is also vital that all answers take into account the hitched and unhitched aspect particularly for road use. Thus for a novice the answers given on here are comprehensive and imo accurate.

 

[Surfer]

TBH I wish they would make caravan insurance compulsory unless it has the equivalent of a SORN and even if it has a SORN, if it is on a caravan park,i.e. seasonal caravan, it should be insured.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I have just found this on AOL. Whilst it is not caravan related, I assume the insurande industry will recommend the same claim procedure:- I have edited it to remove personal details and uneccessary text.

Dispute over toppled tree on property rumbles on

By PA/AOL Money , Jan 16, 2014

A tree which toppled on houses in a storm has still not been moved more than three weeks on because of a dispute over who is responsible for it........

......Mother-of-one .... who lives in the end-terrace house, said there is a stalemate between her landlord and the tree owner over who should move it.

.....Her landlord has been quoted £2,500 to have it shifted, but she believes the cost should be met by the tree's owners.

She said: "My landlord has had a quote of £2,500 to remove the tree. His insurance company has said he will foot the bill and they will try to reclaim it from the tree owner's insurance firm.

"But that means my landlord has to first pay up out of his own pocket, and that's where the problem lies. I think the tree owner should be responsible for removing it.

"I think if you plant a tree in your garden you should look after it, make sure it's safe and if it blows down you should deal with the consequences," she said.

"It shouldn't be down to the innocent party to clear up someone else's mess."

Msxxxxxx, who has lived at the property for just under three years, said that since the tree toppled, a large crack has appeared above a bedroom window and damp was getting in.

However, tree owner said she acted as quickly as possible when the tree blew down from her back garden. She said she was keen to resolve the dispute.

She said: "I rang my insurance company as soon as they opened at 8 o'clock on Christmas Eve after it fell overnight.

"I said, 'What do I do?'

"What happens under these circumstances is that the insurance company for the owner of the house which the tree has fallen on pays for the tree to be removed, then they liaise with our insurance company to recover the costs.

"It's the same as in a car accident. I gave xxxx and her neighbour my insurance company details on Christmas Eve and I saw xxxx's landlord that day.

"My understanding is that the work would be done and the bill would be sent to the insurance company as most people don't have that sort of money."

Ms Stenning said her insurance company had telephoned her this morning and was making efforts to speak to the landlord's insurance firm to resolve the situation.

"I don't want this dragging on and I appreciate xxxx's point of view," she said.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) said that homeowners whose property has been damaged by a tree brought down in a storm need to claim from their own insurance, regardless of who the tree belongs to.

Spokesman Stephen Sobey said: "The ABI cannot comment on specific cases, but as a general rule of thumb, when your home is damaged as a result of a tree felled in a storm, regardless of the tree's ownership, you need to claim from your own building insurance.

"To be able to claim for damage caused to your house, you would have to show that your neighbour was legally liable, for example that they had been negligent in maintaining the tree properly.

"If you can demonstrate your neighbour's liability, then your damages claim may be covered by their household policy, under the legal liability section."

 

[Dustydog]

So the answer to the OP is a resounding YES.

 

[seth1]

The fact still stands legally.No.Its up to the owners discression.

 

[Raywood]

If the first caravan that caught fire caused the caravan next door to catch fire, then surely the owner of the caravan parked next door would claim against the first caravan to catch fire? The caravan owner next to the second one to catch fire would claim against the second caravan and so on with the third and fourth caravan to catch fire. Could this assumption be correct?

In some cases that would be the case. but each case would need to considered on its own merits. Perhaps Raywood has a view on this one.

According to Surfer the owner of the storage site invited the people to the party at the site. The inference is, and I have seen no evidence yet, the alleged Chinese lantern that may have caused the fire was set off by the party members.

There's an old Law case. Ryland v Fletcher. Basically if you allow something onto your land and it causes damage to another party then you become legally liable for such damage. That's putting it simply of course.

In the situation Surfer mentions, each caravan owner , in turn would have to be shown to have been legally negligent in allowing his /her burning caravan to set fire to the next etc.
In essence it must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a party did something demonstrable that caused damage to another's property thus making that person negligent an legally liable in the eyes of an English Court.

The Rylands v Fletcher argument should apply to the site owners if they allowed the chinese lanterns to be set off from their land. Chinese lanterns are a new concept over here and to be 100% sure of the answer as to liability you need a court case which has not happened yet. In simple terms however if you let off a burning object into the sky knowing full well there is a chance of it coming down still alight and setting fire to what it lands on then the chances are very much in favour of a successful claim.
As far as the owners of adjacent caravans being liable for the fire spreading to the next one then this is a non starter. The item brought onto the land has to be potentialy dangerous and a parked caravan is not unless there is some additional problem like the gas being left on and this causes a fire. The spreading of the fire is a natural consequence of the first caravan catching fire given the close proximity of these on a storage site and has nothing to do with the items being dangerous.
Rylands v Fletcher was for the results of a dam bursting and it was held that this was a potentialy dangerous structure and even that is a very old case going back to when design of these things was more hit and miss than it is today.

 

[Surfer]

John interesting you should mention a tree dispute. We had a run in with the council regarding our tepelphone lines snagging in a tree which was on council land. The Council denied responsibilty although the tree was on their land and said it was BT's problem to resolve even though I pointed out that the BT lines were in place long before the tree grew to the height it is at present. Seems if a tree crashes on your caravan, you or yoru insurance company will have a long uphill struggle to be compensated

 

[FrintonMike]

Chinese lanterns are dangerous
Last year our local sixth form decided to set off hundreds of them from the cliff top to go out to sea as a tribute to a pupil who had died in a stabbing.They had the good sense to ask the fire service, police and us (St John Ambulance ) to attend
The wind changed and the lanterns did no go out to sea. Some small fires were started in trees Some even came down on the people watching but luckily no serious harm was done but a few people had singed hair

 

[Surfer]

There is a post in the "Insurance" forum from someone whose "new" to them caravan got flooded while it was in storage and it was not insured. The concern here is if their caravan caught on fire, would yoru insurance comapny pay out promptly or will you be subjected to months of waiting while insurance companies fought it out?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Holiday,

I'm sorry to read of your problem. A thread which covers some of the issues you have has been running here:-

http://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/general/caravan-insurance-it-really-nesessary
I have sympathy with your situation. I am of the opinion that if you lodge your property with a facility that offers storage, the storage company does have some responsibility to make every reasonable effort to prevent damage to your property.

As things seem to stand at the moment it is incumbent on you to prove the storage facility was negligent in some way resulting in your loss.

We have had exceptional weather circumstances recently, and it is likely the resultant flooding may be classed as an act of God, which has implications on third party claims against a facility of this nature.

Sadly I think your experience is salutary example of why taking out caravan insurance is a sensible thing to do, as the alternative can prove to be very expensive.

 

[Dustydog]

Hello Holiday,

I'm sorry to read of your problem. A thread which covers some of the issues you have has been running here:-

http://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/general/caravan-insurance-it-really-nesessary
I have sympathy with your situation. I am of the opinion that if you lodge your property with a facility that offers storage, the storage company does have some responsibility to make every reasonable effort to prevent damage to your property.

As things seem to stand at the moment it is incumbent on you to prove the storage facility was negligent in some way resulting in your loss.

We have had exceptional weather circumstances recently, and it is likely the resultant flooding may be classed as an act of God, which has implications on third party claims against a facility of this nature.

Sadly I think your experience is salutary example of why taking out caravan insurance is a sensible thing to do, as the alternative can prove to be very expensive.

John

Who is holiday?

 

[Raywood]

John interesting you should mention a tree dispute. We had a run in with the council regarding our tepelphone lines snagging in a tree which was on council land. The Council denied responsibilty although the tree was on their land and said it was BT's problem to resolve even though I pointed out that the BT lines were in place long before the tree grew to the height it is at present. Seems if a tree crashes on your caravan, you or yoru insurance company will have a long uphill struggle to be compensated

Surfer, Owners of trees do have a duty of care to check on them and have them removed, lopped or whatever as needed if they become dangerous. This is different to the tree growing into the telephone wires which is natural growth and have to admit I do not have the answer to that. If the tree falls on your caravan or whatever property you still have to show negligence. Owners should keep an eye on trees and if they show signs of rot have these investigated and dealt with as appropriate. Dangerous branches can also give rise to a claim.
If the tree is in a large wooded are with numerous trees then the owner would have to show they took reasonable action to check these but as the numbers rise the easier it becomes to defend.
Another problem can arise with tree preservation orders which might prevent you removing a dangerous tree and realy mess up a claim.

 

[Raywood]

Hello Holiday,

I'm sorry to read of your problem. A thread which covers some of the issues you have has been running here:-

http://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/general/caravan-insurance-it-really-nesessary
I have sympathy with your situation. I am of the opinion that if you lodge your property with a facility that offers storage, the storage company does have some responsibility to make every reasonable effort to prevent damage to your property.

As things seem to stand at the moment it is incumbent on you to prove the storage facility was negligent in some way resulting in your loss.

We have had exceptional weather circumstances recently, and it is likely the resultant flooding may be classed as an act of God, which has implications on third party claims against a facility of this nature.

Sadly I think your experience is salutary example of why taking out caravan insurance is a sensible thing to do, as the alternative can prove to be very expensive.

Hi Prof
I am afraid the owner of the site provides a facility to allow you to store your caravan and has no responsibility for damage or loss unless he is negligent. In most cases this is fairly obvious but there are borderline cases and despite us thinking we have seen everything new cases arise all the time.
As far as the flooding issue is concerned unless the owner has done something to cause or contribute to this then a claim against him is a non starter.
If the owners were automatically liable then the insurance would be far higher and might affect the cost of storage, although conversely if the caravan insurers could recover on more claims the caravan insurance might go down. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Its my age....
I posted a reply for Holoiday22 in the insurance section in here by mistake - sorry for the confusion. I note that Raywood has already responded in the insurance section.
I note Ray's response, outlining the current insurance industry normal response.

If something has become a 'tradition' (such as the site owners not being liable for damage to customers property) that in my view means its ripe to be re evaluated. Any organisation selling storage or security must make their service exceptional in those respects and expect to hammered if they fail.

If they don't provide what they advertise and sell then that is fraud.