Had a search and this doesn't seem to have been asked before.

On Friday I take possession of the keys of a house I am planning to
renovate (and then sell).

I understand that the Bank want normal building cover as they are
helping me finance the project but I need to properly understand what
other liabilities I have.

The house will be unoccupied for the period of the renovation and
therefore the only buildings cover I can get is Property Owners
liability which only covers for Fire, lightening, Earthquake and
Aircraft Strike. I am still not clear whether this also covers me for
any damage to neighbouring properties (people) that I might cause.

I will be doing a lot of the work myself and am expecting any subbies to
carry there own insurance (Do I need to confirm this with them?).
However I will be getting my son's (and probably some of their friends)
to help me strip the place out. Does this mean I need to go for
contract works cover as well to cover me if they get injured whilst
helping me?

Any pointers in the right direction gratefully accepted.

Cheers

Martin
--
Martin Carroll

Martin Carroll wrote:

The house will be unoccupied for the period of the renovation and
therefore the only buildings cover I can get is Property Owners
liability which only covers for Fire, lightening, Earthquake and
Aircraft Strike.

Aircraft Strike??!! That must be the most incredibly unlikely thing
to insure against that I've ever heard of. Not to mention that any
aircraft that happened to strike you would be most definitely liable
and almost certainly able to pay for the damage (well the owners of
the aircraft anyway).

--
Chris Green

In article ,
writes:

Aircraft Strike??!! That must be the most incredibly unlikely thing
to insure against that I've ever heard of. Not to mention that any
aircraft that happened to strike you would be most definitely liable
and almost certainly able to pay for the damage (well the owners of
the aircraft anyway).

Not what the owners of the World Trade Center found.
Also, they only insured one of the towers against destruction
at once, as it was considered most unlikely anything would destroy
them both at the same time.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In message , writes
Martin Carroll wrote:

The house will be unoccupied for the period of the renovation and
therefore the only buildings cover I can get is Property Owners
liability which only covers for Fire, lightening, Earthquake and
Aircraft Strike.

Aircraft Strike??!! That must be the most incredibly unlikely thing
to insure against that I've ever heard of. Not to mention that any
aircraft that happened to strike you would be most definitely liable
and almost certainly able to pay for the damage (well the owners of
the aircraft anyway).

Timely ...

Program on the TV about the Lockerbie disaster on TV as I type


--
geoff

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
writes:

Aircraft Strike??!! That must be the most incredibly unlikely thing
to insure against that I've ever heard of. Not to mention that any
aircraft that happened to strike you would be most definitely liable
and almost certainly able to pay for the damage (well the owners of
the aircraft anyway).


Not what the owners of the World Trade Center found.
Also, they only insured one of the towers against destruction
at once, as it was considered most unlikely anything would destroy
them both at the same time.


Yebbut that sort of incident would be instantly excluded anyway, by
virtue of being an Act of Terrorism or Foreign Power, or whatever the
usual wording is

David

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
writes:

Aircraft Strike??!! That must be the most incredibly unlikely thing
to insure against that I've ever heard of. Not to mention that any
aircraft that happened to strike you would be most definitely liable
and almost certainly able to pay for the damage (well the owners of
the aircraft anyway).

Not what the owners of the World Trade Center found.
Also, they only insured one of the towers against destruction
at once, as it was considered most unlikely anything would destroy
them both at the same time.

.... ah but wasn't that "Aircraft Strike" an act of war and thus not
covered anyway? Not to mention that we're talking about a house, not
a very public, targettable building.

--
Chris Green

Aircraft Strike??!! That must be the most incredibly unlikely thing
to insure against that I've ever heard of.

Not very likely, but it does happen.

Not to mention that any aircraft that happened to strike you would be
most definitely liable and almost certainly able to pay for the damage
(well the owners of the aircraft anyway).

Whilst the vast majority of aircraft are insured, there is, rather
unbelievably, no requirement for compulsory third party insurance for
aircraft.

Christian.

"Martin Carroll" wrote in message
...
Had a search and this doesn't seem to have been asked before.

On Friday I take possession of the keys of a house I am planning to
renovate (and then sell).

I understand that the Bank want normal building cover as they are
helping me finance the project but I need to properly understand what
other liabilities I have.

The house will be unoccupied for the period of the renovation and
therefore the only buildings cover I can get is Property Owners
liability which only covers for Fire, lightening, Earthquake and
Aircraft Strike. I am still not clear whether this also covers me for
any damage to neighbouring properties (people) that I might cause.

I will be doing a lot of the work myself and am expecting any subbies to
carry there own insurance (Do I need to confirm this with them?).
However I will be getting my son's (and probably some of their friends)
to help me strip the place out. Does this mean I need to go for
contract works cover as well to cover me if they get injured whilst
helping me?

Any pointers in the right direction gratefully accepted.

Cheers

Martin
--
Martin Carroll

Not sure about your sons' mates and where they would stand if injured but in
general, go to the insurance company you use for your own house at the
moment. My mum died a few months back and I inherited her victorian
mid-terraced house and we're renovating it with a view to renting it out.

I tried a few different insurance companies but because the property was
going to be unfurnished and unoccupied for more than 90 days, no-one would
touch it and they all suggested my existing insurer would be best (I didn't
just go straight to them first because I wanted to see what prices were
being quoted).

I rang my existing insurers (CIS) and they were more than happy to give
cover. As you'll know, insurance of any kind is a minefield with long lists
of things so suffice to say that it's "standard" cover, covering all
"standard" things such as break-in, damage, rectifying damage to the other
houses at each side, fire, etc., etc., etc., all for a "standard" price and
running for the "standard" term of one year (or until we finish the work and
get tenants in, which should be well under a year).

Mogweed.

Christian McArdle wrote:
Aircraft Strike??!! That must be the most incredibly unlikely thing
to insure against that I've ever heard of.

Not very likely, but it does happen.

Not to mention that any aircraft that happened to strike you would be
most definitely liable and almost certainly able to pay for the damage
(well the owners of the aircraft anyway).

Whilst the vast majority of aircraft are insured, there is, rather
unbelievably, no requirement for compulsory third party insurance for
aircraft.

.... but the requirement isn't that the plane is insured, it's that the
owner has enough money to pay your claim. It's his/her problem if
he's not insured. In general most people who own/fly planes will have
a reasonable amount of money I would have thought, unless they've
spent it all on buying the place of course.

--
Chris Green

In general most people who own/fly planes will have a
reasonable amount of money I would have thought, unless
they've spent it all on buying the place of course.

No. I owned part of a plane for a while and there's no way I (or my estate)
would have been able to afford to rebuild a demolished house, let alone pay
a million for each dead person. The share didn't cost the earth, either,
about 1000 quid for a 1/16. Obviously it was insured, but there was no legal
requirement to do so.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
In general most people who own/fly planes will have a
reasonable amount of money I would have thought, unless
they've spent it all on buying the place of course.

No. I owned part of a plane for a while and there's no way I (or my estate)
would have been able to afford to rebuild a demolished house, let alone pay
a million for each dead person. The share didn't cost the earth, either,
about 1000 quid for a 1/16. Obviously it was insured, but there was no legal
requirement to do so.

But wouldn't any claim have been against the syndicate who owned the
plane, thus it would be your total assets one could claim against, not
just an individual's.

--
Chris Green

wrote:
Christian McArdle wrote:

No. I owned part of a plane for a while and there's no way I (or my estate)
would have been able to afford to rebuild a demolished house, let alone pay
a million for each dead person. The share didn't cost the earth, either,
about 1000 quid for a 1/16. Obviously it was insured, but there was no legal
requirement to do so.

But wouldn't any claim have been against the syndicate who owned the
plane, thus it would be your total assets one could claim against, not
just an individual's.

Surely it would be more likely to be against the individual pilot who
had the misfortune to prang the plane; but having said that if it were
to demolish a building full of investment bankers or whatever, even a
1/16 share of the massive ensuing claim would be more than enough to
totally clean out the vast majority of individuals I would have thought.

Would love to know the answer to the OPs original question, BTW!!

David

Mogweed wrote:
I rang my existing insurers (CIS) and they were more than happy to
give cover. As you'll know, insurance of any kind is a minefield with
long lists of things so suffice to say that it's "standard" cover,
covering all "standard" things such as break-in, damage, rectifying
damage to the other houses at each side, fire, etc., etc., etc., all
for a "standard" price and running for the "standard" term of one
year (or until we finish the work and get tenants in, which should be
well under a year).
Mogweed.

some here, when we renovated the CIS were more than happy to continue cover
under the standard policy.
Jon

But wouldn't any claim have been against the syndicate who owned the
plane, thus it would be your total assets one could claim against, not
just an individual's.

I believe it is a grey area and might depend on the circumstances of the
claim.

If it does go to the syndicate, it is likely to be joint and several, i.e.
they can pursue the total claim against the richest and most available
member.

Christian.

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Christian McArdle wrote:

No. I owned part of a plane for a while and there's no way I (or my
estate)
would have been able to afford to rebuild a demolished house, let alone
pay
a million for each dead person. The share didn't cost the earth, either,
about 1000 quid for a 1/16. Obviously it was insured, but there was no
legal
requirement to do so.

But wouldn't any claim have been against the syndicate who owned the
plane, thus it would be your total assets one could claim against, not
just an individual's.

Surely it would be more likely to be against the individual pilot who had
the misfortune to prang the plane; but having said that if it were to
demolish a building full of investment bankers or whatever, even a 1/16
share of the massive ensuing claim would be more than enough to totally
clean out the vast majority of individuals I would have thought.

Would love to know the answer to the OPs original question, BTW!!

David

Not going to help you there, but keeping with aircraft - all aircraft now
have to have 3rd party liability insurance (new EU regulation) - its costs
are dependent on weight and maximum speed (mv2!) so that some big old
aircraft like the Sally-B B17 may well ed up grounded.

But, if I crash into you are maybe able to claim against me, because the Air
Navigation Order allows recovery of damage without you having to prove
negligence, but you are very unlikely to be able to mount a claim against
my fellow syndicate members. You would have to prove negligence on the part
of my co-owners to recover money against them, and although many people
worry about this, as far as I am aware no claim against co-owners has stood
without a proof of negligence.

I am not sure that the same claim without proving negligence rule applies to
other accidents, I am sure I read that if your neigbours tree falls down and
damages your house, its your problem (again unless you can prove
negligence).

Andy M

Not going to help you there, but keeping with aircraft - all aircraft now
have to have 3rd party liability insurance (new EU regulation) - its costs
are dependent on weight and maximum speed (mv2!) so that some big old
aircraft like the Sally-B B17 may well ed up grounded.

Ah. Things have moved on in the last couple of years. About time too. You
can be sure that the same people who didn't bother were the same people with
dodgy enough risk assessing ability to actually do the crashing.

Christian.

In article ,
wrote:

In general most people who own/fly planes will have
a reasonable amount of money I would have thought, unless they've
spent it all on buying the place of course.

Have a wander around an airfield. See the rusty old wrecks that they drive?
See the tatty clothes and dog eared maps? That's the reality of PPL flying.
:-)

Interestingly enough, one of the local flying schools doesn't have hull
insurance and prohibits flying in all but the best conditions.

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

Andy Mckenzie wrote:

I am not sure that the same claim without proving negligence rule applies to
other accidents, I am sure I read that if your neigbours tree falls down and
damages your house, its your problem (again unless you can prove
negligence).

No longer true where animals are concerned I'm afraid, I'm not sure
about other things. A fairly recent case against a horse owner has
set a precedent (and increased horse insurance premiums considerably).

The horses escaped and caused an accident (a car accident I think),
there was no need to show negligence on the part of of the horse
owner, he was liable simply because they were his horses.

--
Chris Green

Jonathan Pearson wrote:
Mogweed wrote:

I rang my existing insurers (CIS) and they were more than happy to
give cover. As you'll know, insurance of any kind is a minefield with
long lists of things so suffice to say that it's "standard" cover,
covering all "standard" things such as break-in, damage, rectifying
damage to the other houses at each side, fire, etc., etc., etc., all
for a "standard" price and running for the "standard" term of one
year (or until we finish the work and get tenants in, which should be
well under a year).

some here, when we renovated the CIS were more than happy to continue cover
under the standard policy.

But is that just buildings insurance? Does that normally indemnify
against death or injury of anybody employed in the house by the policy
holder, be they casual workers like his son's mates, or 'proper'
contractors? (The OP assumes subbies will have their own insurance; but
even if they do, presumably they'd still sue the OP for damages when
they get squashed by his falling chimney pot or whatever?

David

This is definitely not proving an easy task 8-(

Doing a google has give me plenty of people to try but it seems my
requirements are a little unusual! This is a surprise as I am sure I am
not the first person to do this.

There have been various problems that have precluded brokers being able
to sort me out including :-

The fact that I am doing most of the work myself.
The fact that I intend to sell rather than rent or live in the property.
The fact that there is work to a supporting wall.

I have found one very comprehensive quote here http://www.selfbuildzone.
com/siteinsurance.asp. However the cost is £615, this covers a period
of 24 months but there is no rebate for early cancellation.

I have had 2-3 other quotes at around the £315-£400 mark (and pro-rata
rebate for less than a years cover), but this is just for the FLEA cover
with (I think) 1 adding property owners liability which should cover me
for personal liability to subbies and friends/family. However I am not
convinced that FLEA cover is comprehensive enough for the banks
purposes.

I need to get this in place by next Monday so I will press on with the
googling and phoning around.

Cheers


Martin
--
Martin Carroll

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:49:22 +0100, Martin Carroll
wrote:

This is definitely not proving an easy task 8-(

Doing a google has give me plenty of people to try but it seems my
requirements are a little unusual! This is a surprise as I am sure I am
not the first person to do this.

There have been various problems that have precluded brokers being able
to sort me out including :-

The fact that I am doing most of the work myself.
The fact that I intend to sell rather than rent or live in the property.
The fact that there is work to a supporting wall.

I have found one very comprehensive quote here http://www.selfbuildzone.
com/siteinsurance.asp. However the cost is £615, this covers a period
of 24 months but there is no rebate for early cancellation.

I have had 2-3 other quotes at around the £315-£400 mark (and pro-rata
rebate for less than a years cover), but this is just for the FLEA cover
with (I think) 1 adding property owners liability which should cover me
for personal liability to subbies and friends/family. However I am not
convinced that FLEA cover is comprehensive enough for the banks
purposes.

I need to get this in place by next Monday so I will press on with the
googling and phoning around.

Cheers


Martin

Martin

Can I recommend that you look for cover for hire equipment, especially
large machines if you intend to use any. This will save you a bomb at
the hire shop.

Rick

Martin Carroll wrote:
This is definitely not proving an easy task 8-(

mm, not surprised...

There have been various problems that have precluded brokers being able
to sort me out including :-

The fact that I intend to sell rather than rent or live in the property.

Why is that an issue? If what you're wanting is essentially insurance
for the period *before* you sell, rent, or live in the property, what
does it matter to the insurers what you intend to do with it afterwards?

If it is a sticking point, what's to stop you deciding now to rent the
place out, but later on when all the work is done, maybe you have a
change of heart and decide to flog it after all...?

Do keep us posted!

David