our boundary fence with neighbor suffered damage from a motorist going off the road ,,, both of us had to put in a claim and each pay our respective excess's ,( both with same provider ) ,
fence has been fixed so asked insurance company about getting excess back from motorist who was at fault = told they are having trouble recovering dollars from at fault party ..
Does this mean we are out of pocket even though we are not at fault ?? ,,, what are our rights ??.

pettal - 2021-02-07 16:40:00

hmmm sounds like the driver was uninsured, otherwise the insurer would be claiming against the drivers insurance company.

You could take a Disputes Tribunal claim against the drive, but you've still got to try and get them to pay up. It can be done, but it takes some perseverance and even then it might be a peppercorn amount each week for the next 10 years...

sparkychap - 2021-02-07 16:49:00

We had a similar situation but with motor vehicles. We were able to provide plate number & photo of the other driver's licence to our insurer. We had to pay our excess to our repairer & then sought to claim it from our insurer whom initially declined to reimburse as they hadn't been able to contact & get funds from the other party. After reading the policy thoroughly, we advised them that all we were required to do was provide the details. They paid up! Worth a try, our policy wasn't difficult to read, hopefully yours is the same!

woody89 - 2021-02-07 16:51:00

#3, that is common for MV vs MV insurance claims, however MV vs property is different and house insurance policies do not state the excess is not payable if another party is identified.

OP it does sound like the driver was uninsured, because otherwise your house insurer would have been able to recover from their Insurer easily. All you can do is wait until the other party pays up. The disputes tribunal is only if they are disputing liability, not if they can't afford to pay.

rhys12 - 2021-02-07 17:04:00

The other party maybe uninsured or they could have had their claim denied due to being intoxicated etc.

Your insurer will take them to court to recoup their costs and once they get money they’ll refund your excess.

deerhurst - 2021-02-07 17:18:00

I'd be asking the Insurance company why they wanted a full excess from you AND the neighbour for the one event. No idea of the legalities, but my logic says it's a bit on the nose for them to have their contribution for this claim reduced by the fact that you both have policies with them. I bet they wouldn't want to do the payout for the fence X 2 because it was two separate customers, but they are prepared to "collect" an excess x 2.

cinderellagowns - 2021-02-07 17:20:00

Yeah that was a Question we had as well cinderellagowns , BUT they were insistent on it , so had to front up other wise no fence fix ..

pettal - 2021-02-07 17:34:00

cinderellagowns wrote:

I'd-
be asking the Insurance company why they wanted a full excess from you AND the neighbour for the one event.

Because they both have an excess applied to their individual policies, the fact that they are with the same Insurer makes no difference. If both houses burnt down in the same fire, they wouldn't pay one excess between neighbours, even if it's the same event. The only time Insurers will do 'one event/one excess' is when you have multiple policies yourself affected by one event.

rhys12 - 2021-02-07 17:46:00

Too late now, but you made a blunder.

One of the property owners should have claimed full cost on insurance, then split the premium.

tony9 - 2021-02-07 19:05:00

rhys12 wrote:

Because they both have an excess applied to their individual policies, the fact that they are with the same Insurer makes no difference. If both houses burnt down in the same fire, they wouldn't pay one excess between neighbours, even if it's the same event. The only time Insurers will do 'one event/one excess' is when you have multiple policies yourself affected by one event.

Your example doesn't equate because it is only one fence that needs fixing, not two separate fences owned by two different people. Maybe the neighbours need to agree that one will withdraw their claim, one continues the claim and they split the (single) excess cost.

cinderellagowns - 2021-02-07 20:34:00

rhys12 wrote:

Because they both have an excess applied to their individual policies, the fact that they are with the same Insurer makes no difference. If both houses burnt down in the same fire, they wouldn't pay one excess between neighbours, even if it's the same event. The only time Insurers will do 'one event/one excess' is when you have multiple policies yourself affected by one event.

Your example doesn't equate because it is only one fence that needs fixing, not two separate fences owned by two different people. Maybe the neighbours need to agree that one will withdraw their claim, one continues the claim and they split the (single) excess cost. ie achieving the scenario tony suggested.

cinderellagowns - 2021-02-07 20:35:00

Cinders - the OP can only claim for damage to their half of the fence.

Edited by sparkychap at 8:37 pm, Sun 7 Feb

sparkychap - 2021-02-07 20:36:00

Like - every second paling or something?

cinderellagowns - 2021-02-07 20:39:00

cinderellagowns wrote:

Like - every second paling or something?

no their half of each paling, obvs.

sparkychap - 2021-02-07 20:51:00

cinderellagowns wrote:

Your example doesn't equate because it is only one fence that needs fixing, not two separate fences owned by two different people. Maybe the neighbours need to agree that one will withdraw their claim, one continues the claim and they split the (single) excess cost. ie achieving the scenario tony suggested.

If one withdrew their claim, they are still responsible for 50% of the costs, so the Insurer would pay out half the costs, less excess, to the one that did lodge the claim and the other neighbour would have to pay the full 50% balance.

rhys12 - 2021-02-07 20:59:00

Dang those pesky insurance companies.

cinderellagowns - 2021-02-07 21:08:00