Is there a legal requirement for accidental damage cover?

Question

My question relates to accidental damage done to our property by Parish Council workmen, value is over £1300. There is no question over culpability and the Parish Council Clerk raised a claim against their insurer.  After some time the insurance company did what insurers do best and rejected the claim.  They said that in their opinion the workmen had taken all reasonable care and it was therefore an unfortunate accident, though just how they have ascertained the workmen took 'all reasonable care' is unknown.  The Parish Council clerk has subsequently informed me that at a Council meeting (held behind closed doors) my claim against them has likewise therefore been rejected and I must claim against my home insurance.  I am not accepting this and have sent them a pre-action letter, but my question is whether a Council is legally obliged to have accidental damage cover within their public liability insurance?  It deeply concerns me that there could be other incidents and perhaps even injuries where the insurer could glibly reject a claim and the Council then do the same.

 I am of course aware that it's possible members of our Parish Council may read this post and I welcome their comments.

Answer 1

For clarification, are the workmen employees of the Parish Council or of a contractor engaged by them?

Comments

Thank you for coming back to me Dave.  The workmen are employees of the Parish Council.

---

So you should be claiming against the Council's public liability cover. It doesn't matter whether they have accidental damage cover or not. Your home insurance provider will make the claim on your behalf and, assuming this is successful, it should not invalidate your no-claims status or increase your premium. Alternatively, you could pursue the council via the small claims court, but there is an element of uncertainty in this if they use the free legal services provided by their insurer.

---

Thank you Dave.  As my response to Mentorman below...

The final email from the clerk included this...

'For a claim to succeed, a claimant has to be able to demonstrate that an inured is legally liable because they acted negligently.   Under the circumstances, the insurers will not accept the claim under the policy.

The insurers’ position was reported to the Council at last week’s meeting.  I regret to inform you that the Council has adopted the same position as the insurers and regard this as an accident in which circumstances they are not obliged to reimburse you with the cost of repair.'

So the Insurer is rejecting the claim and the Council are doing likewise even though they've caused the damage.

---

Sorry, I didn't respond to your comment re the small claims court, which is my preferred route because if my home insurer is unsuccessful in recovering the cost against the Council's insurance then this will affect premiums.

---

The Judge started by asking two questions:
(a)Is there any doubt about who broke the window
(b)Is it correct that the Defence has made no effort to settle out of Court
Having established both points (which took about 4 minutes) she called for an adjournment and instructed the Defending Solicitor to get on the phone and get authorisation to settle.  The solicitor failed to secure authorisation even after an extension of the time the Judge gave her, so the trial proceeded.

Answer 2

It would seem to be that there IS a question of culpability as the insurers who would have contacted by the clerk to make a claim-presumably when notified of the damage- has been informed that they see no grounds for a claim. Now who is responsible needs to be ascertained. When you say council workmen do you refer to employees directly employed by the PC or workmen instructed to carry out a job. If a company ( or self employed person even) should have been checked out for their insurance and liability insurance by the PC before they were ordered to carry out the work. The claim for any alleged damage must be handled by the workmen's insurers. If their insurance company also reject such a claim then the onus is on the complainant to bring a civil action for damages against the workmen which will of course bring the burden of proof on them to prove negligence.

The same would be true if the PC's operative did the work and their insurers rejected the claim then the complainant would need to proceed through the civil courts.

Comments

Thank you Mentorman but there is no question of culpability.  The council employees knocked on my door and admitted the accident as soon as they'd done it.  I have a hand-written note from them saying so and the email chain between the Clerk and myself does not in any way suggest a dispute over culpability.

The final email from the clerk included this...

'For a claim to succeed, a claimant has to be able to demonstrate that an inured is legally liable because they acted negligently.   Under the circumstances, the insurers will not accept the claim under the policy.


The insurers’ position was reported to the Council at last week’s meeting.  I regret to inform you that the Council has adopted the same position as the insurers and regard this as an accident in which circumstances they are not obliged to reimburse you with the cost of repair.'

And there lies my issue.  Is the Council legally required to have insurance for accidental damage?  Surely this should be included within their public liability insurance.

---

The Judge started by asking two questions:
(a)Is there any doubt about who broke the window
(b)Is it correct that the Defence has made no effort to settle out of Court
Having established both points (which took about 4 minutes) she called for an adjournment and instructed the Defending Solicitor to get on the phone and get authorisation to settle.  The solicitor failed to secure authorisation even after an extension of the time the Judge gave her, so the trial proceeded.

Answer 3

There is a difference between "accidental" and "negligence" in the world of insurance.  A business, council, etc. would/should have insurance for public liability in the circumstances you describe.  Liability arises if (a) there is a duty of care to the injured party, (b) there has been a breach of that duty of care and (c) injury/property damage has occurred as a result.  It's (b) that's difficult to prove because it relies on whether the incident giving rise to the damage could reasonably have been predicted and whether steps were taken to avoid that risk.  That fact that damage occurred doesn't necessarily give rise to liability in law and in the world of third party liability insurance, it's legal liability not accidental damage that's insurable.  You can insure your own property for accidental damage but not someone else's property.

Comments

Interesting, thank you.  So in this case then it seems the insurer has just said that all reasonable care must have been taken (when in truth they have no idea) and can reject the claim.  So that absolves them but the Council has nevertheless caused the issue.  As I say I have served a pre-action letter to the Clerk and await a response.

---

That fact that damage occurred doesn't necessarily give rise to liability in law
Rubbish!

Where harm / loss / damage is suffered by one, the party responsible for the harm / loss / damage is liable in civil tort for suitable repair, replacement and recommence.
Just take a civil action against the PC.

---

Thank you for that, much appreciated.  I have indeed served a pre-action letter but it's most disappointing that in a village the size of ours it's been necessary to do so.  The council have another 3 weeks before the term expires and I suspect we will end up in Court.  I certainly hope it doesn't come to that but I'd bet money on it.

---

It is the most elementary concept of common law - you bend it, you mend it.

---

Haha, I love that.

---

The Judge started by asking two questions:
(a)Is there any doubt about who broke the window
(b)Is it correct that the Defence has made no effort to settle out of Court
Having established both points (which took about 4 minutes) she called for an adjournment and instructed the Defending Solicitor to get on the phone and get authorisation to settle.  The solicitor failed to secure authorisation even after an extension of the time the Judge gave her, so the trial proceeded.

Answer 4

No. 

The only “insurances” which are legally required are motor vehicle insurance and employers liability compulsory insurance - https://www.gov.uk/employers-liability-insurance

Any other types of liability insurances are entirely optional on the part of the party seeking cover and the insurer may invoke what ever terms and conditions within the policy as they see fit. 

The presence, absence or terms of a policy have absolutely no relationship to the liability of the party that has inflicted loss. Harm or damage upon an other. The RESPONSIBILITY to do no harm exists whether insured or not. 

If a PC does harm to another and the PC’s insurance refuses to cover the recommence, the damage, harm, loss still exists as does the responsibility for it. 

All it means if a PCs policy refuses to pay out is that the PC has paid for an inappropriate policy or that the terms of the policy have not been complied with. 

Comments

Thank you so much.  I hate the situation that we have been put in as I work on a voluntary team for the village Christmas lights which means we have a lot of interaction with the Parish Council.  Nevertheless they have caused the damage, it is a significant amount of money, and I will pursue the issue through the Courts if need be.  Thank you again.

---

It’s an unfortunate situation (not of your making) which you find yourself in.
It reads like your PC clerk doesn’t understand the difference between liability and insurance cover.
The LIABILITY exists whether there is insured cover in place or not.
If the insurer refuses to cover the loss that is a matter between the policy holder and the indemnity provider. The “do no harm” principle (the liability) still exists whether insured or not.
Your PC are especially responsible to act responsibly and to not incur unnecessary costs associated with legal action.

---

The Judge started by asking two questions:
(a)Is there any doubt about who broke the window
(b)Is it correct that the Defence has made no effort to settle out of Court
Having established both points (which took about 4 minutes) she called for an adjournment and instructed the Defending Solicitor to get on the phone and get authorisation to settle.  The solicitor failed to secure authorisation even after an extension of the time the Judge gave her, so the trial proceeded.