Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Storm Eunice vs Tesla Model 3

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
My advice is don't let eSure manage the repair. We had eSure manage the repair of an earlier car and the repairers did a bad job and had to rework what they had done. The reason for the £200 excess is that if you organise the repair and claim, eSure will miss out on their commission for sorting out the claim and kickbacks from high hire-car charges that you could probably get for less. Your car is worth more than £200, so use the Tesla repairer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Durzel
Update for those who are interested in the trials of insurance claims. Spoke to Novo, they couldn't help.

So, esure are now lifting the car to the Tesla authorised garage (they are waiving the extra £200 excess for my choice of garage), they say there's zero chance of recovering it from the neighbour's home insurance (they will try, but unless there's negligence by the home owner) so I'm faced with the £1k excess, there's no hire car coverage as I've not chosen their garage, so I'm now renting a hire car for a couple of weeks (my other car is a Caterham, so if it stops raining at least I have some way of getting to the shops...) until I can see what the repair lead time is (and hope that the Tesla garage can find me a loan vehicle (but they have none at the moment).

Then there is the house roof, there's the £300 excess, but that's my claim and I lose 2 years no claims. Because, again, it's storm damage and not negligence of the neighbour.

So, at the moment, I'm close to £2k which is all mine to stump up, together with the increased premiums next year. I reckon that's more than the neighbour's excess will be to have their roof rebuilt!

Everyone has a different concept of how insurance works but this seems to be how it now does. Honestly feels like Third Party, Fire and Theft might be the easier option!
 
Gutted for you but not entirely surprised sadly as it’s how I understood things to work.

If it was my roof and my neighbour with the bill I’d offer to contribute but they’ve probably their own issues to deal with and bills to pay after the storm. I’d certainly make them aware in a friendly way on the off chance they feel sufficiently bad they want to help soften the blow.
 
Update for those who are interested in the trials of insurance claims. Spoke to Novo, they couldn't help.

So, esure are now lifting the car to the Tesla authorised garage (they are waiving the extra £200 excess for my choice of garage), they say there's zero chance of recovering it from the neighbour's home insurance (they will try, but unless there's negligence by the home owner) so I'm faced with the £1k excess, there's no hire car coverage as I've not chosen their garage, so I'm now renting a hire car for a couple of weeks (my other car is a Caterham, so if it stops raining at least I have some way of getting to the shops...) until I can see what the repair lead time is (and hope that the Tesla garage can find me a loan vehicle (but they have none at the moment).

Then there is the house roof, there's the £300 excess, but that's my claim and I lose 2 years no claims. Because, again, it's storm damage and not negligence of the neighbour.

So, at the moment, I'm close to £2k which is all mine to stump up, together with the increased premiums next year. I reckon that's more than the neighbour's excess will be to have their roof rebuilt!

Everyone has a different concept of how insurance works but this seems to be how it now does. Honestly feels like Third Party, Fire and Theft might be the easier option!
That sucks quite a lot, sorry to hear this.
 
In gobsmacked the neighbours home insurance doesn't cover damage to your property, The whole point of insurance is to indemnify third parties that are damaged as a result of your property. For example - a tree in your garden falls - its isn't your negligence, and it falls blocking the road, the council come to clear the road and the insurance pays.

I really cant accept there has to be negligence by the neighbour for the insurance to pay and i would be consulting a solicitor. Suppose your property suffers from subsidence - again your not negligent but the insurance will pay.

Doesn't seem remotely fair you have to claim against your own insurance for damage sustained from external factors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rooster6655
In gobsmacked the neighbours home insurance doesn't cover damage to your property, The whole point of insurance is to indemnify third parties that are damaged as a result of your property. For example - a tree in your garden falls - its isn't your negligence, and it falls blocking the road, the council come to clear the road and the insurance pays.

I really cant accept there has to be negligence by the neighbour for the insurance to pay and i would be consulting a solicitor. Suppose your property suffers from subsidence - again your not negligent but the insurance will pay.

Doesn't seem remotely fair you have to claim against your own insurance for damage sustained from external factors.
If this is a thing I assume it relates only to home insurance. Pretty sure if my handbrake fails and my car rolls down a hill and totals another car my car insurance is liable for that even though the fault was not mine and I was not even in the car when it happened?
I think I would be taking the earlier suggestion of legal advice. free through existing legal cover if you have it. Its one option I always add to my car cover after it helped me with a messy no fault claim many years ago.

Of course it may depend on the policy. LV literally have falling roof tiles as an example on their website:
"Public liability insurance covers you when you are being held responsible to a person or property, as the owner or occupier of your home. For example, our buildings insurance covers you as the owner of the home for claims such as a tile falling off of your roof and injuring a visitor."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GlynG
The problem is that insurance co don't really give a toss - they want what’s easiest/cheapest for them and any excuse to up your premiums so they really arenlt going to bother harassing the neighbour's insurers.
Independent advice is worth pursuing.. also worth pretending to be interested in insurance from your neighbour's provider and asking them what would happen in these (fictitious) circs...
 
It was just the first link I could find. The point is though that a storm isn’t the neighbours fault, if the roof was maintained they’ve not done anything wrong. I don’t make the rules and only raise it as it might come up between the OP and the insurance companies and while it may not be intuitive (their property damaged yours so surely they’re at fault), it may be the legal situation is different and they’re not.
Yes perhaps, probably worth looking into further in the OPs case
In gobsmacked the neighbours home insurance doesn't cover damage to your property, The whole point of insurance is to indemnify third parties that are damaged as a result of your property. For example - a tree in your garden falls - its isn't your negligence, and it falls blocking the road, the council come to clear the road and the insurance pays.

I really cant accept there has to be negligence by the neighbour for the insurance to pay and i would be consulting a solicitor. Suppose your property suffers from subsidence - again your not negligent but the insurance will pay.

Doesn't seem remotely fair you have to claim against your own insurance for damage sustained from external factors.

I agree, it doesn't make sense to me either, I can understand that the neighbours insurance doesn't cover them or at least doesn't want to cover storms or acts of god but it would only make sense that the neighbour can not be held liable personally for his property causing damage.

Probably worth taking legal advice looking for other cases of a similar nature that went to court if the OP is interested in pursuing further.
 
I would suggest contacting Winchester SC. They will get your car to Tesla Bodyshop Dartford (you can contact them directly) for a fully Tesla approved repair. Its not your insurance its your neighbours so don't try and save any money its not worth it. I am in Basingstoke and it all seemed well planned. Admittedly I was having a warranty paintwork claim but it was a great job.
 
One thing to reflect on is if this went down the route of the neighbour being negligent, their own insurance might not want to pay (or seek reimbursement from the neighbour) as it’s almost certain the policy has a clause to say the house needs to be in a good state of repair. Given the gales you’d be doing well to show that negligence and not the storm was the cause. Not saying don’t investigate the option but a, don’t throw good money after bad, and b, your neighbour would almost certainly prefer to pay the excess than end up on a negligence situation against them.

The OP did say the neighbours insurer asked for details so it may be the OPs own insurer is just applying the basic legal principle here that it was an act of god but the neighbour does have accidental 3rd party coverage for such an event in which case happy days.
 
One thing to reflect on is if this went down the route of the neighbour being negligent, their own insurance might not want to pay (or seek reimbursement from the neighbour) as it’s almost certain the policy has a clause to say the house needs to be in a good state of repair. Given the gales you’d be doing well to show that negligence and not the storm was the cause. Not saying don’t investigate the option but a, don’t throw good money after bad, and b, your neighbour would almost certainly prefer to pay the excess than end up on a negligence situation against them.

The OP did say the neighbours insurer asked for details so it may be the OPs own insurer is just applying the basic legal principle here that it was an act of god but the neighbour does have accidental 3rd party coverage for such an event in which case happy days.
I thought ’act of God’ had been consigned to the WPB. Science knocks that argument into a cocked hat!
 
I thought ’act of God’ had been consigned to the WPB. Science knocks that argument into a cocked hat!
Every buildings insurance I have had in the last 50 years has had cover for third parties covering people and property.
We had trees along our border with our neighbors 15 years ago and the roots damaged their drive. They claimed on our insurance and the drive was repaired and the trees removed even thou they were covered by a TPO.
 
In these "woke" times, If anything is classified as an Act of God then surely that can only apply if you believe in God! If your an atheist then how can there be an AOG.
There have been some good and relevant comments in this thread and the Public Liability - as mentioned by @Jason71 is relevant and the correct terminology.
The concept of insurance and my understanding of Civil law leaves me convinced whoever has said your neighbours insurance doesn't provide indemnification for your neighbours property causing damage to your property is wrong and I would pursue this further even if it leads to litigation and a court deciding. Insurance provides peace of mind that any personal liability due to unforeseen circumstances resulting in a claim against you will be paid by that insurance - and is indeed the whole point of insurance.

Of course my legal knowledge is limited, - just an O level in Criminal and Civil Law, you need a more expert opinion from a solicitor.
 
In these "woke" times, If anything is classified as an Act of God then surely that can only apply if you believe in God! If your an atheist then how can there be an AOG.
There have been some good and relevant comments in this thread and the Public Liability - as mentioned by @Jason71 is relevant and the correct terminology.
The concept of insurance and my understanding of Civil law leaves me convinced whoever has said your neighbours insurance doesn't provide indemnification for your neighbours property causing damage to your property is wrong and I would pursue this further even if it leads to litigation and a court deciding. Insurance provides peace of mind that any personal liability due to unforeseen circumstances resulting in a claim against you will be paid by that insurance - and is indeed the whole point of insurance.

Of course my legal knowledge is limited, - just an O level in Criminal and Civil Law, you need a more expert opinion from a solicitor.
Sadly I think you are wrong. Public liability applies here if neglect or negligence occurs, the point about storm damage and similar acts of god is that no neglect or negligence occured.

You can disagree but the OPs insurer knows this, I've understood it for a while which is why I raised it early on, others have known it and a google search also support it with all the cases I've read to double check


which includes the paragraph..
"In fact this is a common misconception. Your neighbour will not be liable for the damage caused to your property as no-one is held responsible for damage, such as storm damage, caused by so called ‘Acts of God’. Generally you should look to your own insurance company to cover the costs of removing the tree and repairing the damage. Similarly, if a tile blew from the roof of your property and caused damage to, for example, your neighbour’s car, he would have to claim against his own motor insurance."

Feel free to google and find an example where such a circumstance occured as you describe as I'd be interested to see it.

Not withstanding this, and I've mentioned it a couple of times, the neighbours insurer may include cover for such a situation, but thats a policy and not legal decision.

Please don't shoot the messenger
 
  • Like
Reactions: candida
Sadly I think you are wrong. Public liability applies here if neglect or negligence occurs, the point about storm damage and similar acts of god is that no neglect or negligence occured.

You can disagree but the OPs insurer knows this, I've understood it for a while which is why I raised it early on, others have known it and a google search also support it with all the cases I've read to double check


which includes the paragraph..
"In fact this is a common misconception. Your neighbour will not be liable for the damage caused to your property as no-one is held responsible for damage, such as storm damage, caused by so called ‘Acts of God’. Generally you should look to your own insurance company to cover the costs of removing the tree and repairing the damage. Similarly, if a tile blew from the roof of your property and caused damage to, for example, your neighbour’s car, he would have to claim against his own motor insurance."

Feel free to google and find an example where such a circumstance occured as you describe as I'd be interested to see it.

Not withstanding this, and I've mentioned it a couple of times, the neighbours insurer may include cover for such a situation, but thats a policy and not legal decision.

Please don't shoot the messenger
Many thanks for the clarification @GeorgeSymonds - I believe you. Perhaps issuing a claim in the civil courts against the church would be appropriate, God has no right to damage property - then hide away, he should send his son back to defend his actions and a failure to attend will result in the claim standing - and a win. And whilst he's here I will provide him 3 loaves and five fishes - or was it 5 loaves and three fishes - so he can set up another foodbank - may as well go back to Dad knowing he's achieved something good.
I obviously say this tongue in cheek but its so ridiculous that there is a possibility it would be viable in this day and age. (perhaps issuing the writ in America would ensure a court day) I'm still stunned of this limitation regarding buildings insurance though.

Either way -
 
Many thanks for the clarification @GeorgeSymonds - I believe you. Perhaps issuing a claim in the civil courts against the church would be appropriate, God has no right to damage property - then hide away, he should send his son back to defend his actions and a failure to attend will result in the claim standing - and a win. And whilst he's here I will provide him 3 loaves and five fishes - or was it 5 loaves and three fishes - so he can set up another foodbank - may as well go back to Dad knowing he's achieved something good.
I obviously say this tongue in cheek but its so ridiculous that there is a possibility it would be viable in this day and age. (perhaps issuing the writ in America would ensure a court day) I'm still stunned of this limitation regarding buildings insurance though.

Either way -
Worth a try, Penrose.