Storm Damage

[Nigel Grimwood]

Hi all,
recently my caravan was damaged by someone else’s awning in storm Alex earlier this month. He admitted the damage and gave me his insurance details. When I spoke to them they told me that they won’t speak to me directly and that I need to go through my own insurance. My own insurance said the as storm damage was an act of god and not negligence that they won’t try to recover the costs. This means I have to pay my excess ( the other party is unwilling to do so) and my premiums will certainly go up next year through no fault of my own. Can I do anything to recover my loss?

 

[RogerL]

You could sue the other caravanner for the damages, using the Small Claims Court - their insurer would pick up the bill if you win - but you'd still need to declare it as a no-fault claim on any future insurance.

 

[bertieboy1]

Hi all,
recently my caravan was damaged by someone else’s awning in storm Alex earlier this month. He admitted the damage and gave me his insurance details. When I spoke to them they told me that they won’t speak to me directly and that I need to go through my own insurance. My own insurance said the as storm damage was an act of god and not negligence that they won’t try to recover the costs. This means I have to pay my excess ( the other party is unwilling to do so) and my premiums will certainly go up next year through no fault of my own. Can I do anything to recover my loss?

I thought there is no such thing as "act of god"

 

[Buckman]

I think the insurance company is fobbing you off. I would ask for a final deadlock letter and then raise the issue with the Ombudsman. Pity you cannot name the insurance company due to the rules on this forum.

 

[Nigel Grimwood]

I think the insurance company is fobbing you off. I would ask for a final deadlock letter and then raise the issue with the Ombudsman. Pity you cannot name the insurance company due to the rules on this forum.

Thank you very much I hadn’t heard about this before and have now sent an email to my insurance asking for a final deadlock /response letter and informing that that I intended to go to the ombudsman.

 

[Niall_McIntosh]

I think the insurance company is fobbing you off. I would ask for a final deadlock letter and then raise the issue with the Ombudsman. Pity you cannot name the insurance company due to the rules on this forum.

Not sure how the OP's insurer has "fobbed them off". If the OP makes a claim on their insurance, the insurer will indemnify them under the terms of the policy less any amount the OP has agreed to bear as an Excess. If the insurer believes that the loss was caused by the negligence of another party, they may try to recover their costs from that other party (more likely, their insurers). Sometimes, in such cases, they will invite their insured to join the action to recover their excess. However, if their judgement is that such an action is more likely to fail, than succeed, then they will not seek such a recovery.

Not sure either how the Ombudsman can be brought in as, as far as I can see, the OP's insurer is doing exactly what the insurance policy says it will do. If the OP wishes they can. of course, sue the third party for the amount of their Excess, and it may be worthwhile seeking advice on this matter, especially if they have Legal Expenses cover. However, most solicitors will probably use the same yardstick in determining whether to proceed which is whether the case is more likely to succeed than not.

 

[Niall_McIntosh]

Interesting (ish). I guess you work in the industry and as such have the same blinkered view of innocence parties. That said, I asked my insurer for a final deadlock / response letter and mentioned the ombudsman they have suddenly sat up and listened. They are looking to recover the costs. Not sure if this action will come to anything or not but at least they seem to be doing what I pay them to do.

I am not sure what in my reply allows you to suggest that I "have the same blinkered view of innocence (sic) parties". In what way was I "blinkered", and with whom were you comparing me?

 

[Tintentman]

if the insurance has Legal Cover then any issues that you have regarding recovering costs should be carried out by your insurance or the company covering their legal requirements.

 

[Tintentman]

Oops not daddies should read carried

Moderator Note: Previous post amended to "carried"

 

[Buckman]

Interesting (ish). I guess you work in the industry and as such have the same blinkered view of innocence parties. That said, I asked my insurer for a final deadlock / response letter and mentioned the ombudsman they have suddenly sat up and listened. They are looking to recover the costs. Not sure if this action will come to anything or not but at least they seem to be doing what I pay them to do.

I find myself agreeing with you as the insurance company seem to be intent on passing the buck and I stand by my original post. The caravan should be insured for accidental damage. and in thsi case it was an accident and not an Act of God.

 

[Dustydog]

I agree Buckman and that is the stance his own Insurer has taken. That leaves him with his policy excess.
His own insurers can subrogate against the awning owner and his Insurer. However to succeed in a full recovery Nigel will have to prove the awning chap was legally negligent. If Nigel can prove beyond doubt the awning was inadequately erected and not properly secured he may win. If it is shown all reasonable steps were taken to adequately secure the awning Nigel will lose. Or he may win if there is evidence the owner was forewarned by the site of the incoming storm and advised to take down his awning.
This is a legal liability matter and has nothing to do with the FOS.
A bitter pill to swallow but that’s the Law.

 

[Buckman]

I agree Buckman and that is the stance his own Insurer has taken. That leaves him with his policy excess.
His own insurers can subrogate against the awning owner and his Insurer. However to succeed in a full recovery Nigel will have to prove the awning chap was legally negligent. If Nigel can prove beyond doubt the awning was inadequately erected and not properly secured he may win. If it is shown all reasonable steps were taken to adequately secure the awning Nigel will lose. Or he may win if there is evidence the owner was forewarned by the site of the incoming storm and advised to take down his awning.
This is a legal liability matter and has nothing to do with the FOS.
A bitter pill to swallow but that’s the Law.

The other party has admitted negligence which makes it a lot easier for the OP. The fact that the insurance company are stating that it was an Act of God therefore absolving them from any liability is a total joke. Does that mean if the caravan is damaged due to hailstorm, fire etc., it is an Act of God.
IMHO the insurance company stands to lose a lot if this ever went to court. It would be interesting to know the stance the FOS would take regarding an Act of God.

 

[otherclive]

The other party has admitted negligence which makes it a lot easier for the OP. The fact that the insurance company are stating that it was an Act of God therefore absolving them from any liability is a total joke. Does that mean if the caravan is damaged due to hailstorm, fire etc., it is an Act of God.
IMHO the insurance company stands to lose a lot if this ever went to court. It would be interesting to know the stance the FOS would take regarding an Act of God.

I would think that over the years the Act of God situation has set countless precedents. So I’m sure that the FOS have no difficulties in that direction, should it ever get that far.

The owner of the awning hasn’t admitted negligence as far as the OP states. He’s admitted damage caused by his awning to the adjacent van. That’s not negligence it’s a statement of fact. Albeit a pretty obvious one.

 

[Jcloughie]

Like Bertieboy in #3, I had understood that the clause of ‘act of god‘ was a thing of the past. But it seems that that is not the case. A little Googling is showing that internationally countries and companies are struggling with deciding if Covid comes under this clause. But more specifically, the AA give a reasonable explanation here.

As it says, most companies don’t wish to use the ‘get out’ but prefer to rely on a list of specific clauses. So perhaps this is a warning to all of us to read our terms and conditions.

I believe the OP’s case is eminently arguable. Perhaps negligence can be supported if other awnings on site remained in place. Perhaps the awnings owner had not taken sufficient precautions or kept an eye on the weather forecast.

I do know of people who have made successful claims when their own awning has caused damage to their own van in storms.


Could be worse. Way back in the sixties. On a site I was working on in Formby, overnight a 4 house flat roof blew off. It hit the gable of a newly occupied brand new house, above the garage, and that was about 100 yards away. It put a large crack in the gable then came down and destroyed the garage roof and the car outside. The garage was full of new colour tv’s each very expensive at the time.

This went down as an act of god. I still feel for that poor family.

John

 

[Tintentman]

My experience of caravan insurance companies when discussing cover for awnings has always been a bit of a minefield. One company stated the awning was only covered for any form of storm damage if the caravan itself was damaged as a result of the same storm.
On another occasion I was advised that the awning would only be covered if the awning manufacturers advice had been followed to the letter.Literally if heavy rain or high winds (sub storm level) had been forecast the awning should be taken down.
From memory when I purchased it a few years ago, my Kampa Air awning information carried such a recommendation.

 

[Nigel Grimwood]

Thank you all for you inputs. I realise that in the end I will most probably have to use my own insurance and cough it my excess. It is a bitter pill as at no time was I at fault. This is my first caravan after camping for many years and the van is 6 months old. Being a new caravanner I sort advice from ‘old’ hands on when to take an awning down. The collective response was end of September which I duly noted and did. To rub salt into the wound the owner of the van next door turned up two weeks previous to take it down but didn’t because it was breezy! I was on site on August 25th when the previous storm blew through and made sure his awning stayed down by tightening the storm straps and repegging when they came out of the ground. No good deed go unpunished I guess.
Again, thanks for your input.

 

[otherclive]

My experience of caravan insurance companies when discussing cover for awnings has always been a bit of a minefield. One company stated the awning was only covered for any form of storm damage if the caravan itself was damaged as a result of the same storm.
On another occasion I was advised that the awning would only be covered if the awning manufacturers advice had been followed to the letter.Literally if heavy rain or high winds (sub storm level) had been forecast the awning should be taken down.
From memory when I purchased it a few years ago, my Kampa Air awning information carried such a recommendation.

Sort of defeats the benefits of an awning if it is advised to take it down in the event of heavy rain.

As per Malvern CMHC site in August. 😂

 

[otherclive]

Thank you all for you inputs. I realise that in the end I will most probably have to use my own insurance and cough it my excess. It is a bitter pill as at no time was I at fault. This is my first caravan after camping for many years and the van is 6 months old. Being a new caravanner I sort advice from ‘old’ hands on when to take an awning down. The collective response was end of September which I duly noted and did. To rub salt into the wound the owner of the van next door turned up two weeks previous to take it down but didn’t because it was breezy! I was on site on August 25th when the previous storm blew through and made sure his awning stayed down by tightening the storm straps and repegging when they came out of the ground. No good deed go unpunished I guess.
Again, thanks for your input.

Was it a seasonal pitch then? I’ve been on sites where some awnings have been up throughout winter with storm straps and additional guy ropes. But even if the site staff were happy to allow this I’m not sure that I would as I’ve experienced the effect that prolonged rain can have on the ability of pegs to hold tight as the ground softens. Even hard standings aren’t immune. We spent a sleepless summer night at Freshwater East holding on to the awning. The hard standing was gravel over sand and grass was atop sand. Hopefully your insurer will get it sorted and you can look forward to some less dramatic trips out in the future.

 

[JTQ]

Seasonal pitch; that fact might help a claim of negligence, in leaving an awning up to face whatever weather might come its way?
The more so if not specifically an awning designed for that purpose?

Storm Alex coming, was something we knew about, somebody did not take its potential ramifications on board.

 

[Nigel Grimwood]

Was it a seasonal pitch then? I’ve been on sites where some awnings have been up throughout winter with storm straps and additional guy ropes. But even if the site staff were happy to allow this I’m not sure that I would as I’ve experienced the effect that prolonged rain can have on the ability of pegs to hold tight as the ground softens. Even hard standings aren’t immune. We spent a sleepless summer night at Freshwater East holding on to the awning. The hard standing was gravel over sand and grass was atop sand. Hopefully your insurer will get it sorted and you can look forward to some less dramatic trips out in the future.

Yes it was a seasonal pitch.

 

[Nigel Grimwood]

Seasonal pitch; that fact might help a claim of negligence, in leaving an awning up to face whatever weather might come its way?
The more so if not specifically an awning designed for that purpose?

Storm Alex coming, was something we knew about, somebody did not take its potential ramifications on board.

Fully agree.

 

[Dustydog]

Aha! A seasonal pitch. Here we have another twist. The site Owners by consent have allowed an awning to be semi permanently erected by their customer. In the light of Storm Alex what action did the site owner take to advise the Seasonal to take down his awning?
If nothing you may have a claim against the Site Owner. If they say they told the awning owner then you have a clear claim against him, as he ignored the Storm warning.

As this unfolds on more facts I think your own Insurers need to get a grip and pursue recovery of your excess and their outlays. At least I will expect the to do everything to preserve your own NCD.

 

[ProfJohnL]

...To rub salt into the wound the owner of the van next door turned up two weeks previous to take it down but didn’t because it was breezy! I was on site on August 25th when the previous storm blew through and made sure his awning stayed down by tightening the storm straps and repegging when they came out of the ground. No good deed go unpunished I guess.
Again, thanks for your input.

Two things that occur to me.

Firstly the owner was trying to take the awning down but didn't becasue "it was breezy"! As he didn't complete the task the was he negligent?

But sadly there is another negative point, and that is you have admitted to have adjusted his awning of your own volition. It might be construed that you precipitated the failure, by adjusting it.

I think you need to bite your lip and put it down to experience.

 

[Nigel Grimwood]

Two things that occur to me.

Firstly the owner was trying to take the awning down but didn't becasue "it was breezy"! As he didn't complete the task the was he negligent?

But sadly there is another negative point, and that is you have admitted to have adjusted his awning of your own volition. It might be construed that you precipitated the failure, by adjusting it.

I think you need to bite your lip and put it down to experience.

Good point. To be fair I adjusted it a month half before this instance and The owner then redid it himself once I told a week or so later. But yeah probably best not mentioned. Thanks.