In the snow on Friday night I found an interesting collision on the way
into our village. An Audi had left the road and hit the Grade II* listed gatehouse. The car went straight on but the road turned right by about
30 degrees. From the damage caused I'd say they were doing 60+mph. Conditions were not great at the time but at any reasonable speed the
road was perfectly driveable if a little slick.
Where does the owner of the listed building stand in a case like this?
Will the car insurance pay out for the potentially very expensive
rebuild and repair costs of damage to a stone built listed building?
The stone walls made in 3'x 1' x 1' blocks is a very special local stone from a quarry that closed more than a century ago. The build style is
high end Arts & Crafts with very thin mortar joints. Several blocks are smashed and mortar joints broken. Unclear to me how it can be mended.
It is quite likely that the car was TWOC'd. Usually they go through
hedges on the later tighter bends - this was the first challenging bend
of a series of increasingly difficult ones. AFAIK no-one has ever lost
it there before. At the next one we get a crash every few years into someone's garden (often they take the mains supply pole out too).
Where does the owner of the listed building stand in a case like this?
Will the car insurance pay out for the potentially very expensive
rebuild and repair costs of damage to a stone built listed building?
In the snow on Friday night I found an interesting collision on the way
into our village. An Audi had left the road and hit the Grade II* listed gatehouse. The car went straight on but the road turned right by about
30 degrees. From the damage caused I'd say they were doing 60+mph. Conditions were not great at the time but at any reasonable speed the
road was perfectly driveable if a little slick.
Where does the owner of the listed building stand in a case like this?
Will the car insurance pay out for the potentially very expensive
rebuild and repair costs of damage to a stone built listed building?
The stone walls made in 3'x 1' x 1' blocks is a very special local stone from a quarry that closed more than a century ago. The build style is
high end Arts & Crafts with very thin mortar joints. Several blocks are smashed and mortar joints broken. Unclear to me how it can be mended.
It is quite likely that the car was TWOC'd. Usually they go through
hedges on the later tighter bends - this was the first challenging bend
of a series of increasingly difficult ones. AFAIK no-one has ever lost
it there before. At the next one we get a crash every few years into someone's garden (often they take the mains supply pole out too).
In the snow on Friday night I found an interesting collision on the way
into our village. An Audi had left the road and hit the Grade II* listed gatehouse. The car went straight on but the road turned right by about
30 degrees. From the damage caused I'd say they were doing 60+mph. Conditions were not great at the time but at any reasonable speed the
road was perfectly driveable if a little slick.
Where does the owner of the listed building stand in a case like this?
Will the car insurance pay out for the potentially very expensive
rebuild and repair costs of damage to a stone built listed building?
The stone walls made in 3'x 1' x 1' blocks is a very special local stone from a quarry that closed more than a century ago. The build style is
high end Arts & Crafts with very thin mortar joints. Several blocks are smashed and mortar joints broken. Unclear to me how it can be mended.
It is quite likely that the car was TWOC'd. Usually they go through
hedges on the later tighter bends - this was the first challenging bend
of a series of increasingly difficult ones. AFAIK no-one has ever lost
it there before. At the next one we get a crash every few years into someone's garden (often they take the mains supply pole out too).
On 16/02/2026 11:57 am, Martin Brown wrote:
In the snow on Friday night I found an interesting collision on the
way into our village. An Audi had left the road and hit the Grade II*
listed gatehouse. The car went straight on but the road turned right
by about 30 degrees. From the damage caused I'd say they were doing
60+mph. Conditions were not great at the time but at any reasonable
speed the road was perfectly driveable if a little slick.
Where does the owner of the listed building stand in a case like this?
Will the car insurance pay out for the potentially very expensive
rebuild and repair costs of damage to a stone built listed building?
Assuming the driver was insured at all - yes.
The stone walls made in 3'x 1' x 1' blocks is a very special local
stone from a quarry that closed more than a century ago. The build
style is high end Arts & Crafts with very thin mortar joints. Several
blocks are smashed and mortar joints broken. Unclear to me how it can
be mended.
It is quite likely that the car was TWOC'd. Usually they go through
hedges on the later tighter bends - this was the first challenging
bend of a series of increasingly difficult ones. AFAIK no-one has ever
lost it there before. At the next one we get a crash every few years
into someone's garden (often they take the mains supply pole out too).
Obviously, if the vehicle had been TWOCd, the criminal driving was uninsured. The insurance policy of the vehicle's lawful keeper / owner / driver will not (and should not) cover third party liabilities of the criminal behind the wheel. It will, if a comprehensive policy, cover the repair or replacement of the insured vehicle.
On 16/02/2026 11:57, Martin Brown wrote:
In the snow on Friday night I found an interesting collision on the
way into our village. An Audi had left the road and hit the Grade II*
listed gatehouse. The car went straight on but the road turned right
by about 30 degrees. From the damage caused I'd say they were doing
60+mph. Conditions were not great at the time but at any reasonable
speed the road was perfectly driveable if a little slick.
Where does the owner of the listed building stand in a case like this?
Will the car insurance pay out for the potentially very expensive
rebuild and repair costs of damage to a stone built listed building?
The stone walls made in 3'x 1' x 1' blocks is a very special local
stone from a quarry that closed more than a century ago. The build
style is high end Arts & Crafts with very thin mortar joints. Several
blocks are smashed and mortar joints broken. Unclear to me how it can
be mended.
It is quite likely that the car was TWOC'd. Usually they go through
hedges on the later tighter bends - this was the first challenging
bend of a series of increasingly difficult ones. AFAIK no-one has ever
lost it there before. At the next one we get a crash every few years
into someone's garden (often they take the mains supply pole out too).
There would presumably be a claim against the householder's buildings insurers who would in turn seek to recover their outlay from the
insurers of the car driver.
The householder could if he prefers claim against the insurers of the
car driver and not bother his own insurers.
But the bad news is that whichever insurers end up paying out, they will
not be concerned with restoring an old house to the condition it was in prior to the collision. Their liability is to reimburse the owner for
the value of the house, ie the market value at the time of the
collision, maybe by reference to what it could have sold for on the
market. It might then be that the ruined building would either be
demolished or would be purchased by someone who gets a discount to
reflect the need for repairs.
On 16/02/2026 17:51, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2026 11:57, Martin Brown wrote:
In the snow on Friday night I found an interesting collision on the
way into our village. An Audi had left the road and hit the Grade II*
listed gatehouse. The car went straight on but the road turned right
by about 30 degrees. From the damage caused I'd say they were doing
60+mph. Conditions were not great at the time but at any reasonable
speed the road was perfectly driveable if a little slick.
Where does the owner of the listed building stand in a case like this?
Will the car insurance pay out for the potentially very expensive
rebuild and repair costs of damage to a stone built listed building?
The stone walls made in 3'x 1' x 1' blocks is a very special local
stone from a quarry that closed more than a century ago. The build
style is high end Arts & Crafts with very thin mortar joints. Several
blocks are smashed and mortar joints broken. Unclear to me how it can
be mended.
It is quite likely that the car was TWOC'd. Usually they go through
hedges on the later tighter bends - this was the first challenging
bend of a series of increasingly difficult ones. AFAIK no-one has
ever lost it there before. At the next one we get a crash every few
years into someone's garden (often they take the mains supply pole
out too).
There would presumably be a claim against the householder's buildings
insurers who would in turn seek to recover their outlay from the
insurers of the car driver.
I don't think you can safely assume that your home insurance covers collision damage. You'd have to check the policy, as some companies
don't automatically cover it.
The householder could if he prefers claim against the insurers of the
car driver and not bother his own insurers.
But the bad news is that whichever insurers end up paying out, they
will not be concerned with restoring an old house to the condition it
was in prior to the collision. Their liability is to reimburse the
owner for the value of the house, ie the market value at the time of
the collision, maybe by reference to what it could have sold for on
the market. It might then be that the ruined building would either be
demolished or would be purchased by someone who gets a discount to
reflect the need for repairs.
There's normally a requirement to indemnify the householder, up to the
limit of cover. If, because it's a listed property, the householder is obliged to repair it, I don't see how the insurers can avoid that cost?
I accept that it will depend on the policy wording.
On 16/02/2026 15:32, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 11:57 am, Martin Brown wrote:
In the snow on Friday night I found an interesting collision on the
way into our village. An Audi had left the road and hit the Grade II*
listed gatehouse. The car went straight on but the road turned right
by about 30 degrees. From the damage caused I'd say they were doing
60+mph. Conditions were not great at the time but at any reasonable
speed the road was perfectly driveable if a little slick.
Where does the owner of the listed building stand in a case like this?
Will the car insurance pay out for the potentially very expensive
rebuild and repair costs of damage to a stone built listed building?
Assuming the driver was insured at all - yes.
The stone walls made in 3'x 1' x 1' blocks is a very special local
stone from a quarry that closed more than a century ago. The build
style is high end Arts & Crafts with very thin mortar joints. Several
blocks are smashed and mortar joints broken. Unclear to me how it can
be mended.
It is quite likely that the car was TWOC'd. Usually they go through
hedges on the later tighter bends - this was the first challenging
bend of a series of increasingly difficult ones. AFAIK no-one has
ever lost it there before. At the next one we get a crash every few
years into someone's garden (often they take the mains supply pole
out too).
Obviously, if the vehicle had been TWOCd, the criminal driving was
uninsured. The insurance policy of the vehicle's lawful keeper /
owner / driver will not (and should not) cover third party liabilities
of the criminal behind the wheel. It will, if a comprehensive policy,
cover the repair or replacement of the insured vehicle.
In fact, the insurance policy of the vehicle's lawful keeper normally
would cover third party liabilities even if the driver had taken the
vehicle without consent. It's in section 151 of the Road Traffic Act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
If no policy had been issued for the vehicle, the Motor Insurers Bureau would have to compensate third parties.
https://www.mib.org.uk/downloadable-content/
Obviously, if the vehicle had been TWOCd, the criminal driving was
uninsured. The insurance policy of the vehicle's lawful keeper / owner
/ driver will not (and should not) cover third party liabilities of
the criminal behind the wheel. It will, if a comprehensive policy,
cover the repair or replacement of the insured vehicle.
I'd be grateful if you could point out the parts which refer to the liabilities of a person who is *not* covered by an insurance policy which happens to exist in respect of a TWOCd vehicle which he (the uninsured and uncovered person) has taken the vehicle without the consent of the owner / keeper of that vehicle.
Please note: I am *not* arguing that S 151 does not apply to a driver driving
the vehicle within the terms of a driving licence, with the owner's consent including his own where relevant) and in accordance with the terms of the relevant motor insurance policy.
If no policy had been issued for the vehicle, the Motor Insurers Bureau would
have to compensate third parties.
https://www.mib.org.uk/downloadable-content/
I tried that once, when my vehicle was badly damaged in a collision with a vehicle driven by an uninsured, unlicensed driver who was disqualified from driving and was driving whilst over the breathalyser limit. My insurer managed
to get me precisely u0. Luckily, I was not injured in the "accident".
I'd be grateful if you could point out the parts which refer to the liabilities of a person who is *not* covered by an insurance policy which happens to exist in respect of a TWOCd vehicle which he (the uninsured and uncovered person) has taken the vehicle without the consent of the owner / keeper of that vehicle.
On 16/02/2026 11:57 am, Martin Brown wrote:
In the snow on Friday night I found an interesting collision on the way
into our village. An Audi had left the road and hit the Grade II*
listed gatehouse. The car went straight on but the road turned right by
about 30 degrees. From the damage caused I'd say they were doing
60+mph. Conditions were not great at the time but at any reasonable
speed the road was perfectly driveable if a little slick.
Where does the owner of the listed building stand in a case like this?
Will the car insurance pay out for the potentially very expensive
rebuild and repair costs of damage to a stone built listed building?
Assuming the driver was insured at all - yes.
The stone walls made in 3'x 1' x 1' blocks is a very special local
stone from a quarry that closed more than a century ago. The build
style is high end Arts & Crafts with very thin mortar joints. Several
blocks are smashed and mortar joints broken. Unclear to me how it can
be mended.
It is quite likely that the car was TWOC'd. Usually they go through
hedges on the later tighter bends - this was the first challenging bend
of a series of increasingly difficult ones. AFAIK no-one has ever lost
it there before. At the next one we get a crash every few years into
someone's garden (often they take the mains supply pole out too).
Obviously, if the vehicle had been TWOCd, the criminal driving was
uninsured. The insurance policy of the vehicle's lawful keeper / owner / driver will not (and should not) cover third party liabilities of the criminal behind the wheel. It will, if a comprehensive policy, cover the repair or replacement of the insured vehicle.
But the bad news is that whichever insurers end up paying out, they will not be concerned with restoring an old house to the condition it was in prior to the collision. Their liability is to reimburse the owner for the value of the house, ie the market value at the time of the collision, maybe by reference to
what it could have sold for on the market. It might then be that the ruined building would either be demolished or would be purchased by someone who gets a discount to reflect the need for repairs.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mvh3pkFfjmfU1@mid.individual.net...
But the bad news is that whichever insurers end up paying out, they will not >> be concerned with restoring an old house to the condition it was in prior to >> the collision. Their liability is to reimburse the owner for the value of the
house, ie the market value at the time of the collision, maybe by reference to
what it could have sold for on the market. It might then be that the ruined >> building would either be demolished or would be purchased by someone who gets
a discount to reflect the need for repairs.
That is quite simply wrong.
The payout is decided by the sum insured which itself determines
the premium paid.
The sum insured may indeed only cover the market price; which in most cases means a lower premium.
However its always open to the insured to opt for full the reinstatement cost;
which in the case of a listed building may mean doubling the sum insured
with a resulting hike in the premium. As indeed applies to many listed buildings.
On 16/02/2026 22:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mvh3pkFfjmfU1@mid.individual.net...
But the bad news is that whichever insurers end up paying out, they will not
be concerned with restoring an old house to the condition it was in prior to
the collision. Their liability is to reimburse the owner for the value of >>> the
house, ie the market value at the time of the collision, maybe by reference >>> to
what it could have sold for on the market. It might then be that the ruined >>> building would either be demolished or would be purchased by someone who >>> gets
a discount to reflect the need for repairs.
That is quite simply wrong.
The payout is decided by the sum insured which itself determines
the premium paid.
The sum insured may indeed only cover the market price; which in most cases >> means a lower premium.
However its always open to the insured to opt for full the reinstatement
cost;
which in the case of a listed building may mean doubling the sum insured
with a resulting hike in the premium. As indeed applies to many listed
buildings.
That's right. I mis-spoke. Or, as Trump might say, I didn't read the post that
was uploaded in my name.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mviqn2Fo71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/02/2026 22:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in messageThat's right. I mis-spoke. Or, as Trump might say, I didn't read the
news:mvh3pkFfjmfU1@mid.individual.net...
But the bad news is that whichever insurers end up paying out, they
will not be concerned with restoring an old house to the condition it
was in prior to the collision. Their liability is to reimburse the
owner for the value of the house, ie the market value at the time of
the collision, maybe by reference to what it could have sold for on
the market. It might then be that the ruined building would either be
demolished or would be purchased by someone who gets a discount to
reflect the need for repairs.
That is quite simply wrong.
The payout is decided by the sum insured which itself determines the
premium paid.
The sum insured may indeed only cover the market price; which in most
cases means a lower premium.
However its always open to the insured to opt for full the
reinstatement cost;
which in the case of a listed building may mean doubling the sum
insured with a resulting hike in the premium. As indeed applies to
many listed buildings.
post that was uploaded in my name.
Although in many cases you'd be correct; as this is apparently a major
cause of under-insurance. So that when people claim for say flood
damage, they may find that because the insured value of their property
only represents 75% of the full re-instatement cost, they will only be
paid out 75% of any claim. No matter how relatively small this is, in comparison to the sum insured.
On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:29:49 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mviqn2Fo71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/02/2026 22:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in messageThat's right. I mis-spoke. Or, as Trump might say, I didn't read the
news:mvh3pkFfjmfU1@mid.individual.net...
But the bad news is that whichever insurers end up paying out, they
will not be concerned with restoring an old house to the condition it >>>>> was in prior to the collision. Their liability is to reimburse the
owner for the value of the house, ie the market value at the time of >>>>> the collision, maybe by reference to what it could have sold for on
the market. It might then be that the ruined building would either be >>>>> demolished or would be purchased by someone who gets a discount to
reflect the need for repairs.
That is quite simply wrong.
The payout is decided by the sum insured which itself determines the
premium paid.
The sum insured may indeed only cover the market price; which in most
cases means a lower premium.
However its always open to the insured to opt for full the
reinstatement cost;
which in the case of a listed building may mean doubling the sum
insured with a resulting hike in the premium. As indeed applies to
many listed buildings.
post that was uploaded in my name.
Although in many cases you'd be correct; as this is apparently a major
cause of under-insurance. So that when people claim for say flood
damage, they may find that because the insured value of their property
only represents 75% of the full re-instatement cost, they will only be
paid out 75% of any claim. No matter how relatively small this is, in
comparison to the sum insured.
Sounds a tad inequitable to me. Would someone who carelessly overinsured their property by 25% get 125% of the value ?
"Jethro" <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:10n1m0b$1bjns$11@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:29:49 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mviqn2Fo71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/02/2026 22:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in messageThat's right. I mis-spoke. Or, as Trump might say, I didn't read the
news:mvh3pkFfjmfU1@mid.individual.net...
But the bad news is that whichever insurers end up paying out, they >>>>>> will not be concerned with restoring an old house to the condition >>>>>> it was in prior to the collision. Their liability is to reimburse
the owner for the value of the house, ie the market value at the
time of the collision, maybe by reference to what it could have
sold for on the market. It might then be that the ruined building
would either be demolished or would be purchased by someone who
gets a discount to reflect the need for repairs.
That is quite simply wrong.
The payout is decided by the sum insured which itself determines the >>>>> premium paid.
The sum insured may indeed only cover the market price; which in
most cases means a lower premium.
However its always open to the insured to opt for full the
reinstatement cost;
which in the case of a listed building may mean doubling the sum
insured with a resulting hike in the premium. As indeed applies to
many listed buildings.
post that was uploaded in my name.
Although in many cases you'd be correct; as this is apparently a major
cause of under-insurance. So that when people claim for say flood
damage, they may find that because the insured value of their property
only represents 75% of the full re-instatement cost, they will only be
paid out 75% of any claim. No matter how relatively small this is, in
comparison to the sum insured.
Sounds a tad inequitable to me. Would someone who carelessly
overinsured their property by 25% get 125% of the value ?
But if you're claiming for damage, then the cost of repairing that
damage will be proportional to cost of re-instating the whole property;
in terms of the current cost of materials and labour etc. But need bear
no relation at all to the current insured market value of the property;
which may be affected by any number of things
All in all, its probably better to find this all out beforehand, and
make any necessary adjustments; rather that afterwards when it will be
too late.
On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 14:07:02 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro" <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:10n1m0b$1bjns$11@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:29:49 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mviqn2Fo71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/02/2026 22:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in messageThat's right. I mis-spoke. Or, as Trump might say, I didn't read the >>>>> post that was uploaded in my name.
news:mvh3pkFfjmfU1@mid.individual.net...
But the bad news is that whichever insurers end up paying out, they >>>>>>> will not be concerned with restoring an old house to the condition >>>>>>> it was in prior to the collision. Their liability is to reimburse >>>>>>> the owner for the value of the house, ie the market value at the >>>>>>> time of the collision, maybe by reference to what it could have
sold for on the market. It might then be that the ruined building >>>>>>> would either be demolished or would be purchased by someone who
gets a discount to reflect the need for repairs.
That is quite simply wrong.
The payout is decided by the sum insured which itself determines the >>>>>> premium paid.
The sum insured may indeed only cover the market price; which in
most cases means a lower premium.
However its always open to the insured to opt for full the
reinstatement cost;
which in the case of a listed building may mean doubling the sum
insured with a resulting hike in the premium. As indeed applies to >>>>>> many listed buildings.
Although in many cases you'd be correct; as this is apparently a major >>>> cause of under-insurance. So that when people claim for say flood
damage, they may find that because the insured value of their property >>>> only represents 75% of the full re-instatement cost, they will only be >>>> paid out 75% of any claim. No matter how relatively small this is, in
comparison to the sum insured.
Sounds a tad inequitable to me. Would someone who carelessly
overinsured their property by 25% get 125% of the value ?
But if you're claiming for damage, then the cost of repairing that
damage will be proportional to cost of re-instating the whole property;
in terms of the current cost of materials and labour etc. But need bear
no relation at all to the current insured market value of the property;
which may be affected by any number of things
All in all, its probably better to find this all out beforehand, and
make any necessary adjustments; rather that afterwards when it will be
too late.
Respectfully, that doesn't leave me knowing if I was answered or not.
On 16/02/2026 06:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
In fact, the insurance policy of the vehicle's lawful keeper normally
would cover third party liabilities even if the driver had taken the
vehicle without consent. It's in section 151 of the Road Traffic Act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
Thank you.
Having read that Section (thanks for the link), it is not jumping off
the page at me that the law forces insurers to meet the liabilities of >*uninsured* persons.
(b) it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be
so covered if the policy insured all persons F8... and the judgment is >obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy >F9... .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 21:00:17 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/02/2026 06:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
In fact, the insurance policy of the vehicle's lawful keeper normally
would cover third party liabilities even if the driver had taken the
vehicle without consent. It's in section 151 of the Road Traffic Act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
Thank you.
Having read that Section (thanks for the link), it is not jumping off
the page at me that the law forces insurers to meet the liabilities of
*uninsured* persons.
[snip]
(b) it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be
so covered if the policy insured all persons F8... and the judgment is
obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy
F9... .
That's the one.
It's basically saying that, as regards the bare minimum of compulsory insurance (which is almost, but not quite, the same as third party insurance), the policy has to be treated as if it were an "any driver" policy, irrespective of whether it is or not, unless it's an "excluded liability" (which is defined subsequently).
So if someone steals your car and prangs it, damaging someone else's
property in the process, your insurer will be liable.
That may seem unfair. But, in reality, it's a relatively low probability event, so your insurer is not at particularly great risk as a result of that clause. And, in cany case, most of the things that a thief or TWOCcer are likely to prang your car into will themselves by covered by insurance. So your insurer's loss is their insurer's gain, in this particular instance. But, assuming that most insurers are equally pranged and pranged against, in the long run it will mostly balance out. Having liability defined in legislation simply saves both of them from needing to argue about it, which benefits both.
The only situation where it doesn't balance out in the long run is where the victim of the prang isn't insured against the damage caused. In that case,
an insurer loses but no other insurer gains. But then, if the vehicle
causing the damage was deemed to be uninsured in the circumstances of the damage, then the Motor Insurers Bureau would, ultimately, be liable. And the MIB is funded by the insurance industry. So either way, the insurers are still paying.
Mark
There would presumably be a claim against the householder's buildings
insurers who would in turn seek to recover their outlay from the
insurers of the car driver.
I don't think you can safely assume that your home insurance covers
collision damage. You'd have to check the policy, as some companies
don't automatically cover it.
A random example from a LV buildings insurance policy under "what is covered".
7. Impact by any animal, falling tree or
branch, road vehicle, train, aircraft,
or other flying objects (including
items dropped from them).
The householder could if he prefers claim against the insurers of the
car driver and not bother his own insurers.
But the bad news is that whichever insurers end up paying out, they
will not be concerned with restoring an old house to the condition it
was in prior to the collision. Their liability is to reimburse the
owner for the value of the house, ie the market value at the time of
the collision, maybe by reference to what it could have sold for on
the market. It might then be that the ruined building would either be
demolished or would be purchased by someone who gets a discount to
reflect the need for repairs.
There's normally a requirement to indemnify the householder, up to the
limit of cover. If, because it's a listed property, the householder is
obliged to repair it, I don't see how the insurers can avoid that
cost? I accept that it will depend on the policy wording.
It would probably be necessary for the policyholder to specify a sum
insured that covers full reinstatement and to choose a special, more expensive listed building policy.
I think it is probably true to say that the owner remains legally
obliged to repair the listed building even if the insurance payment does
not cover the cost in full.
On 17/02/2026 09:12 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 21:00:17 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/02/2026 06:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
In fact, the insurance policy of the vehicle's lawful keeper normally
would cover third party liabilities even if the driver had taken the
vehicle without consent. It's in section 151 of the Road Traffic Act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
Thank you.
Having read that Section (thanks for the link), it is not jumping off
the page at me that the law forces insurers to meet the liabilities of
*uninsured* persons.
[snip]
(b) it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be
so covered if the policy insured all persons F8... and the judgment is
obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy
F9... .
That's the one.
It's basically saying that, as regards the bare minimum of compulsory
insurance (which is almost, but not quite, the same as third party
insurance), the policy has to be treated as if it were an "any driver"
policy, irrespective of whether it is or not, unless it's an "excluded
liability" (which is defined subsequently).
So if someone steals your car and prangs it, damaging someone else's
property in the process, your insurer will be liable.
That may seem unfair. But, in reality, it's a relatively low probability
event, so your insurer is not at particularly great risk as a result
of that
clause. And, in cany case, most of the things that a thief or TWOCcer are
likely to prang your car into will themselves by covered by insurance. So
your insurer's loss is their insurer's gain, in this particular instance.
But, assuming that most insurers are equally pranged and pranged
against, in
the long run it will mostly balance out. Having liability defined in
legislation simply saves both of them from needing to argue about it,
which
benefits both.
The only situation where it doesn't balance out in the long run is
where the
victim of the prang isn't insured against the damage caused. In that
case,
an insurer loses but no other insurer gains. But then, if the vehicle
causing the damage was deemed to be uninsured in the circumstances of the
damage, then the Motor Insurers Bureau would, ultimately, be liable.
And the
MIB is funded by the insurance industry. So either way, the insurers are
still paying.
Mark
Thank you.
Observation: "That may seem unfair". Well, it's more than that. It
really IS unfair.
The TWOCing criminal should have (and be made to bear) his own uninsured liability.
On 17/02/2026 09:12 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
That may seem unfair. But, in reality, it's a relatively low probability
event, so your insurer is not at particularly great risk as a result of that >> clause. And, in cany case, most of the things that a thief or TWOCcer are
likely to prang your car into will themselves by covered by insurance. So
your insurer's loss is their insurer's gain, in this particular instance.
But, assuming that most insurers are equally pranged and pranged against, in >> the long run it will mostly balance out. Having liability defined in
legislation simply saves both of them from needing to argue about it, which >> benefits both.
The only situation where it doesn't balance out in the long run is where the >> victim of the prang isn't insured against the damage caused. In that case, >> an insurer loses but no other insurer gains. But then, if the vehicle
causing the damage was deemed to be uninsured in the circumstances of the
damage, then the Motor Insurers Bureau would, ultimately, be liable. And the >> MIB is funded by the insurance industry. So either way, the insurers are
still paying.
Thank you.
Observation: "That may seem unfair". Well, it's more than that. It
really IS unfair.
The TWOCing criminal should have (and be made to bear) his own uninsured >liability.
As an alternative or supplementary provision, if Parliament took the
view that public policy requires that third property-owners must be >protected even if not insured, the obvious way to square that would be
for public funds to be available for the necessary repairs and replacements.
On 18/02/2026 12:01, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 09:12 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 21:00:17 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/02/2026 06:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
In fact, the insurance policy of the vehicle's lawful keeper normally >>>>> would cover third party liabilities even if the driver had taken the >>>>> vehicle without consent. It's in section 151 of the Road Traffic Act. >>>>>
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
Thank you.
Having read that Section (thanks for the link), it is not jumping off
the page at me that the law forces insurers to meet the liabilities of >>>> *uninsured* persons.
[snip]
(b) it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be >>>> so covered if the policy insured all persons F8... and the judgment is >>>> obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy >>>> F9... .
That's the one.
It's basically saying that, as regards the bare minimum of compulsory
insurance (which is almost, but not quite, the same as third party
insurance), the policy has to be treated as if it were an "any driver"
policy, irrespective of whether it is or not, unless it's an "excluded
liability" (which is defined subsequently).
So if someone steals your car and prangs it, damaging someone else's
property in the process, your insurer will be liable.
That may seem unfair. But, in reality, it's a relatively low probability >>> event, so your insurer is not at particularly great risk as a result
of that
clause. And, in cany case, most of the things that a thief or TWOCcer
are
likely to prang your car into will themselves by covered by
insurance. So
your insurer's loss is their insurer's gain, in this particular
instance.
But, assuming that most insurers are equally pranged and pranged
against, in
the long run it will mostly balance out. Having liability defined in
legislation simply saves both of them from needing to argue about it,
which
benefits both.
The only situation where it doesn't balance out in the long run is
where the
victim of the prang isn't insured against the damage caused. In that
case,
an insurer loses but no other insurer gains. But then, if the vehicle
causing the damage was deemed to be uninsured in the circumstances of
the
damage, then the Motor Insurers Bureau would, ultimately, be liable.
And the
MIB is funded by the insurance industry. So either way, the insurers are >>> still paying.
Mark
Thank you.
Observation: "That may seem unfair". Well, it's more than that. It
really IS unfair.
The TWOCing criminal should have (and be made to bear) his own
uninsured liability.
But how would you get money from a clueless imbecile who has none?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 12:01:45 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2026 09:12 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
That may seem unfair. But, in reality, it's a relatively low probability >>> event, so your insurer is not at particularly great risk as a result of that
clause. And, in cany case, most of the things that a thief or TWOCcer are >>> likely to prang your car into will themselves by covered by insurance. So >>> your insurer's loss is their insurer's gain, in this particular instance. >>> But, assuming that most insurers are equally pranged and pranged against, in
the long run it will mostly balance out. Having liability defined in
legislation simply saves both of them from needing to argue about it, which >>> benefits both.
The only situation where it doesn't balance out in the long run is where the
victim of the prang isn't insured against the damage caused. In that case, >>> an insurer loses but no other insurer gains. But then, if the vehicle
causing the damage was deemed to be uninsured in the circumstances of the >>> damage, then the Motor Insurers Bureau would, ultimately, be liable. And the
MIB is funded by the insurance industry. So either way, the insurers are >>> still paying.
Thank you.
Observation: "That may seem unfair". Well, it's more than that. It
really IS unfair.
The TWOCing criminal should have (and be made to bear) his own uninsured
liability.
Even if the TWOCcer has the wherewithal to pay it, extracting the cash from him will rely on the case meandering its way through the overburdened court system and finally reaching a judgment. The victim can't wait that long. The insurance company will pay out in a matter of days.
However, the insurers can, themselves, subsequently pursue the TWOCcer for damages. If successful, they will not be out of pocket.
As an alternative or supplementary provision, if Parliament took the
view that public policy requires that third property-owners must be
protected even if not insured, the obvious way to square that would be
for public funds to be available for the necessary repairs and replacements.
Which would, of course, be paid for out of taxation. So who to tax, and how? The current system is, effectively, a tax on insurers. It makes them pay
-
either directly or via their funding of the MIB - for something which
neither they nor their clients are at fault for. Maybe the government should just tax them instead, and make the payments itself. But MIB and RTA 151 payments are an overhead, which reduces their tax liability. So the insurers themselves are better off paying those costs directly rather than being
taxed in order to pay them.
If you don't want the insurers to pay, then someone else has to. It could be added to VED, I suppose. But would the car owning public be happy with that? I suspect not. General taxation? Ditto.
Mark
On 18/02/2026 06:38 pm, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:01, JNugent wrote:
Observation: "That may seem unfair". Well, it's more than that. It
really IS unfair.
The TWOCing criminal should have (and be made to bear) his own
uninsured liability.
But how would you get money from a clueless imbecile who has none?
It might be difficult. But making him bankrupt might be just, as well as
a reasonable deterrent of others.
Long ago there was a similar incident red BMW vs tree at high speed
where the car caught fire and the doors wouldn't open. Summary justice I suppose. Thefts from outbuildings, TV/VCR breaking and entering stopped
for a while after that until some new miscreants moved into the area.
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 21:00:17 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/02/2026 06:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
In fact, the insurance policy of the vehicle's lawful keeper normally
would cover third party liabilities even if the driver had taken the
vehicle without consent. It's in section 151 of the Road Traffic Act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
Thank you.
Having read that Section (thanks for the link), it is not jumping off
the page at me that the law forces insurers to meet the liabilities of >>*uninsured* persons.
[snip]
(b) it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be
so covered if the policy insured all persons F8... and the judgment is >>obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy >>F9... .
That's the one.
It's basically saying that, as regards the bare minimum of compulsory insurance (which is almost, but not quite, the same as third party insurance), the policy has to be treated as if it were an "any driver" policy, irrespective of whether it is or not, unless it's an "excluded liability" (which is defined subsequently).
So if someone steals your car and prangs it, damaging someone else's
property in the process, your insurer will be liable.
That may seem unfair. But, in reality, it's a relatively low probability event, so your insurer is not at particularly great risk as a result of that
clause. And, in cany case, most of the things that a thief or TWOCcer are likely to prang your car into will themselves by covered by insurance. So your insurer's loss is their insurer's gain, in this particular instance. But, assuming that most insurers are equally pranged and pranged against, in the long run it will mostly balance out. Having liability defined in legislation simply saves both of them from needing to argue about it, which benefits both.
The only situation where it doesn't balance out in the long run is where the victim of the prang isn't insured against the damage caused. In that case,
an insurer loses but no other insurer gains. But then, if the vehicle
causing the damage was deemed to be uninsured in the circumstances of the damage, then the Motor Insurers Bureau would, ultimately, be liable. And the MIB is funded by the insurance industry. So either way, the insurers are still paying.
Mark
On 2026-02-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
So if someone steals your car and prangs it, damaging someone else's
property in the process, your insurer will be liable.
That may seem unfair. But, in reality, it's a relatively low probability
event, so your insurer is not at particularly great risk as a result of that
Is there any legal protection to prevent your insurer from putting the premiums up as a result of being a victim of theft?
On 18/02/2026 09:04 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 12:01:45 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2026 09:12 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
That may seem unfair. But, in reality, it's a relatively low probability >>>> event, so your insurer is not at particularly great risk as a result of that
clause. And, in cany case, most of the things that a thief or TWOCcer are >>>> likely to prang your car into will themselves by covered by insurance. So >>>> your insurer's loss is their insurer's gain, in this particular instance. >>>> But, assuming that most insurers are equally pranged and pranged against, in
the long run it will mostly balance out. Having liability defined in
legislation simply saves both of them from needing to argue about it, which
benefits both.
The only situation where it doesn't balance out in the long run is where the
victim of the prang isn't insured against the damage caused. In that case, >>>> an insurer loses but no other insurer gains. But then, if the vehicle
causing the damage was deemed to be uninsured in the circumstances of the >>>> damage, then the Motor Insurers Bureau would, ultimately, be liable. And the
MIB is funded by the insurance industry. So either way, the insurers are >>>> still paying.
Thank you.
Observation: "That may seem unfair". Well, it's more than that. It
really IS unfair.
The TWOCing criminal should have (and be made to bear) his own uninsured >>> liability.
Even if the TWOCcer has the wherewithal to pay it, extracting the cash from >> him will rely on the case meandering its way through the overburdened court >> system and finally reaching a judgment. The victim can't wait that long. The >> insurance company will pay out in a matter of days.
However, the insurers can, themselves, subsequently pursue the TWOCcer for >> damages. If successful, they will not be out of pocket.
As an alternative or supplementary provision, if Parliament took the
view that public policy requires that third property-owners must be
protected even if not insured, the obvious way to square that would be
for public funds to be available for the necessary repairs and replacements.
Which would, of course, be paid for out of taxation. So who to tax, and how? >> The current system is, effectively, a tax on insurers. It makes them pay
You mean it makes policy-holders pay!
On 2026-02-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
So if someone steals your car and prangs it, damaging someone else's
property in the process, your insurer will be liable.
That may seem unfair. But, in reality, it's a relatively low probability
event, so your insurer is not at particularly great risk as a result of that
Is there any legal protection to prevent your insurer from putting the >premiums up as a result of being a victim of theft?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:38:37 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
So if someone steals your car and prangs it, damaging someone else's
property in the process, your insurer will be liable.
That may seem unfair. But, in reality, it's a relatively low probability >>> event, so your insurer is not at particularly great risk as a result of that
Is there any legal protection to prevent your insurer from putting the >>premiums up as a result of being a victim of theft?
No. And nor should there be. It is entirely reasonable of insurers to have policies which incentivise their customers to take reasonable precautions. And most insurers also offer a protected no claims discount which covers cases where the customer is not only not at fault but could not reasonably have taken any practical steps to avoid or mitigate loss.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 24:14:13 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
12 files (21,036K bytes) |
| Messages: | 195,978 |