1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to vehicles parked here" type of notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
from the site owners' public liability insurance?
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to vehicles parked here" type of notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to vehicles parked here" type of notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to vehicles parked here" type of notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators would
trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say an
uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle causing
the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't negligent.
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
from the site owners' public liability insurance?
Well..... I don't think any notice can absolve anyone of their responsibilties under health and safety laws...
i.e. its a given that a car will have flammable chemicals on board a.k.a petrol, diesel LPG or lithium in the case of EVs
So if one car bursts into flames, you would expect the owners to have
fire protection measures such as firewalls, fire breaks, compartmented
car park areas simply to (a) reduce the speed of fire, (b) reduce teh
rate of spread of teh fire (c) minimise risk of injury to fire fighters
etc.
As it happens I have seen car parks with water sprinkler systems for
this very reason so if the said car park had no fire protection or suppression measures then I think the owners are on shaky ground in
terms of negligence
The sides of the car park alone didn't have any wind breaks so the whole
car park probably acted as a giant chimney allowing the fire to spread
so quickly.
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of the original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
Most multistories I use are boring concrete utility ones from the 1970's
& 80's. The Gateshead one featured in "Get Carter" was recently retired
with extreme prejudice.
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of the original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
On 11/10/2023 17:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators would
trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say an
uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle
causing the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't
negligent.
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping that
they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire.
On 12/10/2023 09:36, Martin Brown wrote:
....
Most multistories I use are boring concrete utility ones from the
1970's & 80's. The Gateshead one featured in "Get Carter" was recently
retired with extreme prejudice.
The one at Luton Airport was built only a few years ago, as part of an airport renovation.
....
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of
the original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
That is going to depend upon the insurance policy. While there is no
limit on third party claims for personal injury, legally, the insurers
only need to offer £1 million cover for property damage, but many
policies offer more than that.
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of the
original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some sort of negligence on the part of their insured.
On 12/10/2023 10:16, David McNeish wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of the
original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some sort of negligence on the part of their insured.
It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not impossible.
* reports vary as to which model.
--
Colin Bignell
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping that they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire.
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 14:35:55 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/10/2023 10:16, David McNeish wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of the >>>> original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some sort of
negligence on the part of their insured.
subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not
impossible.
* reports vary as to which model.
--
Colin Bignell
Even so most accidents are caused by driver negligence, so their insurance should cover this.
On 12/10/2023 10:16, David McNeish wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of the
original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some sort of
negligence on the part of their insured.
It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not impossible.
* reports vary as to which model.
On 12/10/2023 15:45, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 14:35:55 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/10/2023 10:16, David McNeish wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of
the
original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some sort of >>>> negligence on the part of their insured.
subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not
impossible.
* reports vary as to which model.
--
Colin Bignell
Even so most accidents are caused by driver negligence, so their
insurance should cover this.
The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
of the car that first caught fire are liable for. I think that could be affected by whether or not the car owner had been negligent in ignoring
a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
On 11/10/2023 17:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators would
trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say an
uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle
causing the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't
negligent.
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping that
they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire.
On 11/10/2023 19:44, SH wrote:
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
from the site owners' public liability insurance?
Well..... I don't think any notice can absolve anyone of their
responsibilties under health and safety laws...
i.e. its a given that a car will have flammable chemicals on board
a.k.a petrol, diesel LPG or lithium in the case of EVs
So if one car bursts into flames, you would expect the owners to have
fire protection measures such as firewalls, fire breaks, compartmented
car park areas simply to (a) reduce the speed of fire, (b) reduce teh
rate of spread of teh fire (c) minimise risk of injury to fire
fighters etc.
It looked like a rather flimsy open steel structure that was adequate to
hold the weight of the cars but only just. The moment that steelwork got seriously hot in the fire it was compromised. Without intumescent
coatings on the steelwork it was doomed to collapse once the fire really
got going. The same fate did for the twin towers in 9/11. Red hot
steelwork doesn't have enough strength to maintain building rigidity.
There are intumescent paint systems that can mitigate that and gain an
extra hour or two for the emergency services to fire fight before the structure weakens and fails catastrophically.
https://www.nullifire.com/en-gb/products-systems/product-ranges-overview/structural-steel-fire-protection/
It will be interesting to see what the enquiry actually says about the engineering decisions of that design. I know plenty of very similar
carparks. I have *never* seen one with sprinkler system.
As it happens I have seen car parks with water sprinkler systems for
this very reason so if the said car park had no fire protection or
suppression measures then I think the owners are on shaky ground in
terms of negligence
I have seen so few such installations that I can't recall any apart from those built into the underground carparks of very expensive high rise prestige office blocks. The sort that exclude all LPG vehicles entirely.
Most multistories I use are boring concrete utility ones from the 1970's
& 80's. The Gateshead one featured in "Get Carter" was recently retired
with extreme prejudice.
The sides of the car park alone didn't have any wind breaks so the
whole car park probably acted as a giant chimney allowing the fire to
spread so quickly.
Once you have a fuel tank explode in a full carpark then all bets are off.
On 12/10/2023 09:04, Colin Bignell wrote:of-tragedy.html
On 11/10/2023 17:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators would
trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say an
uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle
causing the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't
negligent.
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping that
they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire.
There are precedents such as the Selby Train crash:
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1554682/Record-price-
On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/10/2023 15:45, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 14:35:55 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/10/2023 10:16, David McNeish wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner
of the
original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some
sort of
negligence on the part of their insured.
subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not
impossible.
* reports vary as to which model.
--
Colin Bignell
Even so most accidents are caused by driver negligence, so their
insurance should cover this.
The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
of the car that first caught fire are liable for. I think that could
be affected by whether or not the car owner had been negligent in
ignoring a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
Perhaps the car park without sprinklers may also play a part in claims? Certainly for the building owners as cars should be expected to
occasionally burst into flames.
On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/10/2023 15:45, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 14:35:55 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/10/2023 10:16, David McNeish wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of >>>>> the
original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some sort of >>>> negligence on the part of their insured.
subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not
impossible.
* reports vary as to which model.
--
Colin Bignell
Even so most accidents are caused by driver negligence, so their
insurance should cover this.
The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurersPerhaps the car park without sprinklers may also play a part in claims? Certainly for the building owners as cars should be expected to
of the car that first caught fire are liable for. I think that could be affected by whether or not the car owner had been negligent in ignoring
a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
occasionally burst into flames.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:04:59 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 11/10/2023 17:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators would
trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say an
uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle
causing the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't
negligent.
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping that
they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire.
That's what reinsurers are for ...
On 12-Oct-23 9:36, Martin Brown wrote:
Once you have a fuel tank explode in a full carpark then all bets are
off.
Question: How effective would a sprinkler system be in this situation? Water is far from ideal when dealing with a petrol/diesel fire.
On 12/10/2023 20:42, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 12-Oct-23 9:36, Martin Brown wrote:
Once you have a fuel tank explode in a full carpark then all bets are
off.
Question: How effective would a sprinkler system be in this situation?
Water is far from ideal when dealing with a petrol/diesel fire.
My instinct is that sprinkler system vendors will tell you that they
have the magic bullet and it would all be fine if only...
However, the best that I think a sprinkler system might achieve in these circumstances would be to slow down the spread of the fire to
neighbouring vehicles until the fire brigade arrives. A dense water
misting system might be better at slowing down the fire with much less
water used but can also be very disorienting to anyone caught up in it.
That might have been good enough to avoid catastrophic failure - I don't know. I think the enquiry into it will be very interesting (it should
report by the middle of the century if Grenfell is any guide). Airport
fire brigade training and kit is very good on fighting kerosene fires
with foam so I'm a bit surprised that it all got so far out of hand.
Problem is burning fuel floats on water and you could end up spreading
the fire instead. Water based fire extinguishers are only any good for smashing open locked firedoors (that is what I was taught). A wastepaper basket fire is about all they can be used on but they tick a box.
Solvent fires require correct use of the right extinguisher. General
advice is unless you are trained or know exactly what to do is beat a
hasty retreat and raise the alarm. Only worth tackling a solvent fire if
you know what you are doing and it is safe to do so. And you should
raise the alarm first - always making sure you have a path to retreat.
It would take a dry powder extinguisher to take down a car fire even at
the early stages and you must aim at the base of the fire for it to be effective. Untrained people often aim too high partly because of the
recoil of discharge and a tendency to point it at the flames.
A CO2 extinguisher might take it down if you got there soon enough and
knew exactly what you were doing.
The ultimate car fire extinguisher was
a tiny 8" cylinder of BCF (now banned under the Montreal protocol).
Our instructor took out a 16' square tray of waste solvent fire with a
few puffs of BCF after the same fire had been tackled with 6 dry powder (success), 8 CO2 (just failed), 12 water (massive flare up). It was by
far the most impressive and exciting safety courses I have ever been on.
On 12/10/2023 21:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:04:59 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:So, there will be a lot of reinsurers who are hoping they aren't
On 11/10/2023 17:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators would
trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners
claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say an
uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle
causing the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't
negligent.
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping that
they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire.
That's what reinsurers are for ...
carrying the cover?
On 12-Oct-23 9:36, Martin Brown wrote:
On 11/10/2023 19:44, SH wrote:
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
from the site owners' public liability insurance?
Well..... I don't think any notice can absolve anyone of their
responsibilties under health and safety laws...
i.e. its a given that a car will have flammable chemicals on board
a.k.a petrol, diesel LPG or lithium in the case of EVs
So if one car bursts into flames, you would expect the owners to have
fire protection measures such as firewalls, fire breaks, compartmented
car park areas simply to (a) reduce the speed of fire, (b) reduce teh
rate of spread of teh fire (c) minimise risk of injury to fire
fighters etc.
It looked like a rather flimsy open steel structure that was adequate to hold the weight of the cars but only just. The moment that steelwork got seriously hot in the fire it was compromised. Without intumescent
coatings on the steelwork it was doomed to collapse once the fire really got going. The same fate did for the twin towers in 9/11. Red hot
steelwork doesn't have enough strength to maintain building rigidity.
There are intumescent paint systems that can mitigate that and gain an extra hour or two for the emergency services to fire fight before the structure weakens and fails catastrophically.
https://www.nullifire.com/en-gb/products-systems/product-ranges-overview/structural-steel-fire-protection/
It will be interesting to see what the enquiry actually says about the engineering decisions of that design. I know plenty of very similar carparks. I have *never* seen one with sprinkler system.
As it happens I have seen car parks with water sprinkler systems for
this very reason so if the said car park had no fire protection or
suppression measures then I think the owners are on shaky ground in
terms of negligence
I have seen so few such installations that I can't recall any apart from those built into the underground carparks of very expensive high rise prestige office blocks. The sort that exclude all LPG vehicles entirely.
Most multistories I use are boring concrete utility ones from the 1970's
& 80's. The Gateshead one featured in "Get Carter" was recently retired with extreme prejudice.
The sides of the car park alone didn't have any wind breaks so the
whole car park probably acted as a giant chimney allowing the fire to
spread so quickly.
Once you have a fuel tank explode in a full carpark then all bets are off.Question: How effective would a sprinkler system be in this situation?
Water is far from ideal when dealing with a petrol/diesel fire.
--
Sam Plusnet
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:09:42 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/10/2023 21:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:04:59 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:So, there will be a lot of reinsurers who are hoping they aren't
On 11/10/2023 17:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators would >>>>> trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners
claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say an >>>>> uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle
causing the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't
negligent.
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping that >>>> they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire.
That's what reinsurers are for ...
carrying the cover?
No more than a basic insurer hopes they never have to pay out.
The thing is when the claim is in excess of £10million (which is one reinsurance threshold I know of) it's worth spending £1million on a legal strategy to deflect liability. Who knows if the premises in question were fully compliant with every line of every law concerning construction, operation and maintenance ?
On 13/10/2023 09:32, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:09:42 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:Obviously a lot of money there for the lawyers, but I would expect a
On 12/10/2023 21:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:04:59 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:So, there will be a lot of reinsurers who are hoping they aren't
On 11/10/2023 17:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the >>>>>>> structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators
would trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners
claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say >>>>>> an uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle >>>>>> causing the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't
negligent.
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping
that they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire.
That's what reinsurers are for ...
carrying the cover?
No more than a basic insurer hopes they never have to pay out.
The thing is when the claim is in excess of £10million (which is one
reinsurance threshold I know of) it's worth spending £1million on a
legal strategy to deflect liability. Who knows if the premises in
question were fully compliant with every line of every law concerning
construction, operation and maintenance ?
four year old building to have a better chance of being compliant than
one from, say, 1985, when the airport opened its then new international terminal.
On 12/10/2023 15:45, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 14:35:55 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/10/2023 10:16, David McNeish wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of
the
original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some sort of >>>> negligence on the part of their insured.
subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not
impossible.
* reports vary as to which model.
--
Colin Bignell
Even so most accidents are caused by driver negligence, so their
insurance should cover this.
The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
I think that could be
affected by whether or not the car owner had been negligent in ignoring
a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:01:43 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 09:32, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:09:42 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:Obviously a lot of money there for the lawyers, but I would expect a
On 12/10/2023 21:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:04:59 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:So, there will be a lot of reinsurers who are hoping they aren't
On 11/10/2023 17:51, Fredxx wrote:That's what reinsurers are for ...
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the >>>>>>>> structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to >>>>>>>> vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators
would trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners
claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say >>>>>>> an uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle >>>>>>> causing the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't >>>>>>> negligent.
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping
that they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire. >>>>>
carrying the cover?
No more than a basic insurer hopes they never have to pay out.
The thing is when the claim is in excess of £10million (which is one
reinsurance threshold I know of) it's worth spending £1million on a
legal strategy to deflect liability. Who knows if the premises in
question were fully compliant with every line of every law concerning
construction, operation and maintenance ?
four year old building to have a better chance of being compliant than
one from, say, 1985, when the airport opened its then new international
terminal.
Well yes. But the regulations are very dense. And a failure to comply
with even a single sentence could be used towards a claim of negligence.
On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/10/2023 15:45, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 14:35:55 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 12/10/2023 10:16, David McNeish wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner
of the
original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some
sort of
negligence on the part of their insured.
subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not
impossible.
* reports vary as to which model.
--
Colin Bignell
Even so most accidents are caused by driver negligence, so their
insurance should cover this.
The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the value
of the car.
I think that could be affected by whether or not the car owner had
been negligent in ignoring a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
But would the recall notice have said that the car should not be driven
until the modification had taken place? Would it have been brought to
the notice of each owner even those who bought the vehicle second hand?
On 13/10/2023 14:55, The Todal wrote:SNIP
On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the value
of the car.
They are legally obliged to provide third party cover. However, in the
case of property damage, that can be as little as one million pounds,
unless the policy provides for a higher figure.
I think that could be affected by whether or not the car owner had
been negligent in ignoring a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
But would the recall notice have said that the car should not be driven until the modification had taken place? Would it have been brought to
the notice of each owner even those who bought the vehicle second hand?
--
Colin Bignell
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:30:44 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 14:55, The Todal wrote:SNIP
On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers >>>> of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the value >>> of the car.
They are legally obliged to provide third party cover. However, in the
case of property damage, that can be as little as one million pounds,
unless the policy provides for a higher figure.
The insurer is liable for third party loss to the third party. PI claimants can sue the insurer, not sure about property.
The cover is compulsory, however if there is an exclusion or limit then the insurer can sue the insured for the excess balance paid out.
I think that could be affected by whether or not the car owner had
been negligent in ignoring a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
But would the recall notice have said that the car should not be driven
until the modification had taken place? Would it have been brought to
the notice of each owner even those who bought the vehicle second hand?
I have had two recall notices on my BMW, both relating to EGR*, with a slight risk of fire. Of course I got them done, however neither had a "do not drive" until warning.
* if the car was driven at autobahn speed for while then the very hot exhaust gases could melt some plastic part and escape into the engine compartment and possibly start a fire.
--
Colin Bignell
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:30:44 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 14:55, The Todal wrote:SNIP
On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers >>>> of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the value >>> of the car.
They are legally obliged to provide third party cover. However, in the
case of property damage, that can be as little as one million pounds,
unless the policy provides for a higher figure.
The insurer is liable for third party loss to the third party. PI claimants can sue the insurer, not sure about property.
The cover is compulsory, however if there is an exclusion or limit then the insurer can sue the insured for the excess balance paid out.
On 13/10/2023 14:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:01:43 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 09:32, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:09:42 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:Obviously a lot of money there for the lawyers, but I would expect a
On 12/10/2023 21:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:04:59 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:So, there will be a lot of reinsurers who are hoping they aren't
On 11/10/2023 17:51, Fredxx wrote:That's what reinsurers are for ...
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the >>>>>>>>> structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to >>>>>>>>> vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators >>>>>>>> would trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners >>>>>>>>> claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say >>>>>>>> an uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle >>>>>>>> causing the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't >>>>>>>> negligent.
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping >>>>>>> that they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire. >>>>>>
carrying the cover?
No more than a basic insurer hopes they never have to pay out.
The thing is when the claim is in excess of £10million (which is one
reinsurance threshold I know of) it's worth spending £1million on a
legal strategy to deflect liability. Who knows if the premises in
question were fully compliant with every line of every law concerning
construction, operation and maintenance ?
four year old building to have a better chance of being compliant than
one from, say, 1985, when the airport opened its then new international
terminal.
Well yes. But the regulations are very dense. And a failure to comply
with even a single sentence could be used towards a claim of negligence.
We don't have all the facts. But unless the owners of the car park are provably negligent, neither the owners or the insurers will have any liability and it would be up to each vehicle owner to claim from their
own motor insurers. If some have insured third party only, then they
will be out of pocket.
I don't suppose there is any obligation to install a sprinkler system in
a car park, but if there was one and it wasn't working correctly then
maybe there might be some liability.
Why did the original car catch fire? I think most car fires are
unexplained - cannot be traced to any interference from the owner or any
poor workmanship during construction or maintenance.
On 13/10/2023 15:44, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:30:44 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 14:55, The Todal wrote:SNIP
On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers >>>>> of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the
value
of the car.
They are legally obliged to provide third party cover. However, in the
case of property damage, that can be as little as one million pounds,
unless the policy provides for a higher figure.
The insurer is liable for third party loss to the third party. PI
claimants can sue the insurer, not sure about property.
The cover is compulsory, however if there is an exclusion or limit
then the insurer can sue the insured for the excess balance paid out.
The third party cover indemnifies the policyholder against claims for negligence, so if the policyholder wasn't negligent there is no need to indemnify third parties. Or does anyone disagree?
On 13/10/2023 16:08, The Todal wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:44, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:30:44 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 14:55, The Todal wrote:SNIP
On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
The question is just how much of the consequential damage the
insurers
of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the
value
of the car.
They are legally obliged to provide third party cover. However, in the >>>> case of property damage, that can be as little as one million pounds,
unless the policy provides for a higher figure.
The insurer is liable for third party loss to the third party. PI
claimants can sue the insurer, not sure about property.
The cover is compulsory, however if there is an exclusion or limit
then the insurer can sue the insured for the excess balance paid out.
The third party cover indemnifies the policyholder against claims for
negligence, so if the policyholder wasn't negligent there is no need
to indemnify third parties. Or does anyone disagree?
According to the RTA 1988, the requirement is that third party insurance
must cover any liability which may be incurred in respect of the death
of or bodily injury to any person caused by, or arising out of, the use
of the vehicle on a road or other public place in Great Britain.
Negligence is not mentioned and I would take the view that consequential damage as the result of an accidental car fire would also incur a
liability under the Act.
It also appears that the minimum amount of cover for damage to property
is now £1.2 million and not £1 million as I wrote previously.
On 13/10/2023 14:46, The Todal wrote:
On 13/10/2023 14:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:01:43 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 09:32, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:09:42 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:Obviously a lot of money there for the lawyers, but I would expect a
On 12/10/2023 21:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:04:59 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:So, there will be a lot of reinsurers who are hoping they aren't
On 11/10/2023 17:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the >>>>>>>>>> structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to >>>>>>>>>> vehicles parked here" type of notice.
A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators >>>>>>>>> would trump such a notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners >>>>>>>>>> claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say >>>>>>>>> an uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the
vehicle
causing the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't >>>>>>>>> negligent.
I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping >>>>>>>> that they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch >>>>>>>> fire.
That's what reinsurers are for ...
carrying the cover?
No more than a basic insurer hopes they never have to pay out.
The thing is when the claim is in excess of £10million (which is one >>>>> reinsurance threshold I know of) it's worth spending £1million on a >>>>> legal strategy to deflect liability. Who knows if the premises in
question were fully compliant with every line of every law concerning >>>>> construction, operation and maintenance ?
four year old building to have a better chance of being compliant than >>>> one from, say, 1985, when the airport opened its then new international >>>> terminal.
Well yes. But the regulations are very dense. And a failure to comply
with even a single sentence could be used towards a claim of negligence. >>>
We don't have all the facts. But unless the owners of the car park are
provably negligent, neither the owners or the insurers will have any
liability and it would be up to each vehicle owner to claim from their
own motor insurers. If some have insured third party only, then they
will be out of pocket.
Do many people insure third party only, rather than third party, fire
and theft?
I don't suppose there is any obligation to install a sprinkler system
in a car park, but if there was one and it wasn't working correctly
then maybe there might be some liability.
Why did the original car catch fire? I think most car fires are
unexplained - cannot be traced to any interference from the owner or
any poor workmanship during construction or maintenance.
From the Land Rover recall notice:
A concern has been identified with certain 2019 and 2020 Model Year
Range Rover Evoque and Discovery Sport MHEV vehicles where an electrical overload event in the 48Volt (V) electrical system may cause a failure
of the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor (MOSFET)
Failure of the MOSFET may cause an electrical cascade failure, causing
the DCDC convertor to experience an electrical short where the 12V
circuit shorts to ground. When the DCDC convertor experiences an
electrical short to ground, the 12V electrical system will discharge,
this will be indicated by the battery warning tell-tale on the
Instrument Cluster.
In extreme cases, the vehicle occupants may notice a burning smell
and/or smoke from the DCDC converter vent into the passenger
compartment. Where sufficient oxygen exists, a sustained vehicle fire
may occur
From the Land Rover recall notice:
A concern has been identified with certain 2019 and 2020 Model Year
Range Rover Evoque and Discovery Sport MHEV vehicles where an electrical overload event in the 48Volt (V) electrical system may cause a failure
of the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor (MOSFET)
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:09:42 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
So, there will be a lot of reinsurers who are hoping they aren't
carrying the cover?
No more than a basic insurer hopes they never have to pay out.
The thing is when the claim is in excess of £10million (which is one reinsurance threshold I know of) it's worth spending £1million on a legal strategy to deflect liability. Who knows if the premises in question were fully compliant with every line of every law concerning construction, operation and maintenance ?
Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
From the Land Rover recall notice:
A concern has been identified with certain 2019 and 2020 Model Year
Range Rover Evoque and Discovery Sport MHEV vehicles where an electrical
overload event in the 48Volt (V) electrical system may cause a failure
of the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor (MOSFET)
It's a 2014, a diesel not a hybrid, with no outstanding recalls. As I
posted elsewhere:
Video of it on fire:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Vp9VbIBhDzo
I ran that through a 400% AI upscale via Tensorpix.
Here's a still from the result:
https://ibb.co/mH9qfbj
That does confirm E10 EFL as the reg.
DVLA tax database says that's a red 2993cc diesel Land Rover, registered May 2014.
MOT database: https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=e10efl
says LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPORT first reg 30 May 2014, done 84k miles.
No outstanding recalls.
Range Rovers seem to come with quite a few variations of 'faces', including aftermarket body kits, but the 2014 3.0 Sport does look like a good match: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202310102865664
When I put E10 EFL into Eurocarparts, it offers 8 types of lead acid (AGM) battery. In the Range Rover EPC: https://allbrit.de/epc.cfm?PAGE=4140105&CAR=TLX2013&SPRACHE=EN
all the batteries are AGM, even on the stop start models.
So:
It's a diesel
It's not a traditional hybrid
It may or may not have stop-start
It uses an AGM lead acid battery
It doesn't use a lithium battery
The battery is in the boot, not under the seat
Theo
On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to vehicles
parked here" type of notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
from the site owners' public liability insurance?
The owners should claim against their own car insurance and who pays
them is the insurers' problem. This is obviously a no-blame claim, so it wouldn't affect the no-claim bonus on many policies.
1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the structure collapsing due to fire.
Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to vehicles parked here" type of notice.
Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 43:19:20 |
| Calls: | 6,709 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,018 |