Injured in a neighbour's house - neighbour refusing to engage

[DirectDevil]

Just came across this thread. My ten cents worth.

1. This is a public liability claim under either the neighbour's household insurance or his business insurance if it arises incidental to the plant hire business.

2. Standard household insurance cover includes public liability insurance.

3. The neighbour owes OP a duty of care.
If neighbour was negligent there is a valid claim.
Negligence must be proven. Mere happening of an event like this would not automatically confer legal liability.

4. As this is a public liability type claim I take it that it will have to go to the PIAB which can be a pain in the face. Link - https://www.piab.ie/eng/

5. Neighbour has no obligation to disclose insurance details.

6. Ultimately, if neighbour is so stupid as to do the "head down - say nothing - it will go away" routine he will probably ignore any legal proceedings as well. If that happens you will get a judgment in default. If the Sheriff returns the fi-fa marked nulla bona you can then lodge the judgment against his property by way of judgment mortgage. If he is not likely to be selling that will be of no practical use.

7. A negotiated compromise would be well advised here before departing on a punitive expedition.

 

[galway_blow_in]

I didn't refer to a revelation. You said yourself that your neighbour may portray himself as the wronged one, and rationalize almost anything.

Just make sure you're sufficiently armed for that.

i cant do anything about how this man decides to take this , nor can i do anything about how other people read the situation , you will always have critics no matter the situation

 

[galway_blow_in]

Just came across this thread. My ten cents worth.

1. This is a public liability claim under either the neighbour's household insurance or his business insurance if it arises incidental to the plant hire business.

2. Standard household insurance cover includes public liability insurance.

3. The neighbour owes OP a duty of care.
If neighbour was negligent there is a valid claim.
Negligence must be proven. Mere happening of an event like this would not automatically confer legal liability.

4. As this is a public liability type claim I take it that it will have to go to the PIAB which can be a pain in the face. Link - https://www.piab.ie/eng/

5. Neighbour has no obligation to disclose insurance details.

6. Ultimately, if neighbour is so stupid as to do the "head down - say nothing - it will go away" routine he will probably ignore any legal proceedings as well. If that happens you will get a judgment in default. If the Sheriff returns the fi-fa marked nulla bona you can then lodge the judgment against his property by way of judgment mortgage. If he is not likely to be selling that will be of no practical use.

7. A negotiated compromise would be well advised here before departing on a punitive expedition.

thank you for that very detailed reply , i am taking a wait and see approach for now , im hoping this person will simply facilitate a conventional insurance claim by notifying his insurance company , if he decides to be belligerent , i will consider taking a civil action , while i realize a judgement against his house would penalize him , im not as yet convinced it would benefit me and it would leave the situation unresolved , i suspect were he to consult a solicitor , they would strongly advise him to not go down that road

if he has insurance to cover this , matters should take their course relatively smoothly , albeit slowly

 

[T McGibney]

i cant do anything about how this man decides to take this , nor can i do anything about how other people read the situation , you will always have critics no matter the situation

You can - by trying to anticipate every possible scenario in relation to his response to all this, and devising appropriate strategies to deal with each and every one that you can think of. It's called planning. I'm amazed your solicitor hasn't suggested this in some shape or form.

 

[galway_blow_in]

I know its not the forum for medical advice but a bone bruise should be healing or nearly there at this stage. You are unlikely to suffer arthritis unless there was a joint injury. Have you been elevating the leg for long periods to reduce swelling. You didnt elaborate on what the MRI showed. If there was no fracture then you are likely to be well again very soon. You are lucky that you did not suffer serious injury. Be thankful for that rather that focussing on what worse things may have occurred - they didnt. Anyway for what its worth I think having a good neighbour that you can drop in to borrow something and have a friendship is a valuable thing in life. Try to keep your relationship intact if you can. You never know when you might need him. He is probably suffering just as much as you if not more ! I can guarantee you he has had a few sleepless nights particularly getting a solicitors letter. I have noticed over the years that people who make disproportionate insurance claims may end up sick or have some tragedy unfold in their life that cannot be fixed by money. Just an observation. Money wont fix your foot. Solicitors will of course advise that you need compensation but then again they are taking a nice slice for themselves. You can claim 20% of your medical expenses back through the Med 1 form. I hope that your foot gets better soon and that you can get on with your life.

bone bruising is worse than a bone break according to my GP , the injury has a benign name but is much more complex than a straight break , my GP has told me it takes six months to recover with all going well , i have yet to see an orthopedic so i dont yet know if its a deep bruise or not , i may have to see a foot specialist , in some cases , the bone can die and arthritis can set in but hopefully that is not a risk here but i dont know anything as of yet , im not a medic so its a learning curve for me entirely

no offense but its a load of cobblers to suggest the other man is suffering more than me , he made this into a dispute , in fact had he engaged with me in a thoughtful and civil manner , i would probably not have needed to send him a solicitors letter so early on , i was left with no choice as i got nothing but a torrent of abuse down the phone and him eventually hanging up the last two occasions , i sent him the letter for fear he would leave it too long to notify his insurance company , in that regard i was protecting the man

 

[galway_blow_in]

You can - by trying to anticipate every possible scenario in relation to his response to all this, and devising appropriate strategies to deal with each and every one that you can think of. It's called planning. I'm amazed your solicitor hasn't suggested this in some shape or form.

and would you apply the same high standards to the other man or does all the responsibility for how this story plays out rest with me ?

 

[T McGibney]

and would you apply the same high standards to the other man or does all the responsibility for how this story plays out rest with me ?

Stop playing the victim. I'm only trying to help you by suggesting how I'd approach this if I were in your shoes.

And if your neighbour asked me what I thought, I'd offer the same advice to him.

But why do I bother?

 

[peteb]

dont worry , im dismissing your contribution for the pedantic and obtuse blather it is !

Please. you just want to hear what you want to hear and you think insurance is the easy pay out here for him to fund the cost of your injury. You've already said further down that you would have paid him the difference in the cost of his premium vs the increase following your potential payout.

Direct Devil has already pointed out as I had alluded to, that you are going to have to prove negligence on the part of the neighbour.

As people mentioned before, you didnt have to go to a solicitor you could have just gone down the Injuries Board route without one.

 

[galway_blow_in]

Stop playing the victim. I'm only trying to help you by suggesting how I'd approach this if I were in your shoes.

And if your neighbour asked me what I thought, I'd offer the same advice to him.

But why do I bother?

im merely challenging your line of thinking , no need to be reductive

 

[galway_blow_in]

Please. you just want to hear what you want to hear and you think insurance is the easy pay out here for him to fund the cost of your injury. You've already said further down that you would have paid him the difference in the cost of his premium vs the increase following your potential payout.

Direct Devil has already pointed out as I had alluded to, that you are going to have to prove negligence on the part of the neighbour.

As people mentioned before, you didnt have to go to a solicitor you could have just gone down the Injuries Board route without one.

more baseless conjecture about what i want

nice cherry picking by the way of what direct devil said , convenient of you to not refer to where he says the other man has a duty of care here

 

[T McGibney]

im merely challenging your line of thinking , no need to be reductive

No, on several occasions on this thread your responses have been hostile and dismissive, eg "more baseless conjecture".

People are trying to help you here.

 

[galway_blow_in]

No, on several occasions on this thread your responses have been hostile and dismissive, eg "more baseless conjecture".

People are trying to help you here.

thats funny , you trot out the reactionary " stop playing the victim " line when i cast doubt on your suggestion that i control the narrative here and im the one being hostile

some posters have indeed been very helpful , agreed

 

[T McGibney]

Suit yourself then. But don't blame us if it all goes wrong.

 

[galway_blow_in]

Suit yourself then. But don't blame us if it all goes wrong.

it might well go wrong , i cant control everything , as was stated correctly earlier , a person can get law in court but not justice , i might not take a civil action if the other man decides to refuse to involve his insurance , i think it would be a lousy act on his part but i would have to be practical in terms of making the next step , if he never sells his house ,a charge against it means nothing and it would probably cost me a bit to bring a civil case before that judgement was even made

this other man may decide to bluff under the assumption i wont call

 

[DirectDevil]

thank you for that very detailed reply , i am taking a wait and see approach for now , im hoping this person will simply facilitate a conventional insurance claim by notifying his insurance company , if he decides to be belligerent , i will consider taking a civil action , while i realize a judgement against his house would penalize him , im not as yet convinced it would benefit me and it would leave the situation unresolved , i suspect were he to consult a solicitor , they would strongly advise him to not go down that road

if he has insurance to cover this , matters should take their course relatively smoothly , albeit slowly

I think that you are wise not to rush in too quickly.

On a practical level you need to see how the injury progresses.
Hopefully, it will settle but that just does not always happen with some injuries which can prove surprisingly problematical.
Against this, you have to watch the time limit for bringing your claim - probably 2 years for this one from date of accident.

BTW if neighbour does not seek indemnity from his insurance company and then reports it late having reconsidered his position he might end up with no cover.
His insurers could repudiate liability to him under his contract for late notification.

 

[cremeegg]

1. he told me he had home insurance but claimed to not have liability insurance , ive looked into this and its not possible to have home insurance without having liability insurance

I dont think you are correct here. My insurance ties the public liability to the contents insurance. At one point I had only buildings cover with no contents insurance, I afterwards discovered that I had no public liability insurance for that time. I am not saying this is the case with all insurance companies but it was for that company at that time.

 

[peteb]

I dont think you are correct here. My insurance ties the public liability to the contents insurance. At one point I had only buildings cover with no contents insurance, I afterwards discovered that I had no public liability insurance for that time. I am not saying this is the case with all insurance companies but it was for that company at that time.

that's your personal public liability that attaches to the contents side of things - i.e you open an umbrella on the street and take someone's eye out with it. Property owners liability should follow the buildings cover.............much as it pains me to provide anything beyond baseless conjecture for this thread!

 

[galway_blow_in]

I think that you are wise not to rush in too quickly.

On a practical level you need to see how the injury progresses.
Hopefully, it will settle but that just does not always happen with some injuries which can prove surprisingly problematical.
Against this, you have to watch the time limit for bringing your claim - probably 2 years for this one from date of accident.

BTW if neighbour does not seek indemnity from his insurance company and then reports it late having reconsidered his position he might end up with no cover.
His insurers could repudiate liability to him under his contract for late notification.

all valuable points devil , yes my solicitor made be aware of the fact that while you have two years to bring a claim , the person being claimed against has a much shorter time frame in which to notify their insurance of an incident and potential impending claim , according to my solicitor it can be as little as two months , it was upon hearing this that i decided to formally write to this person as trying to talk to him by phone proved fruitless due to his indignation

 

[DirectDevil]

I dont think you are correct here. My insurance ties the public liability to the contents insurance. At one point I had only buildings cover with no contents insurance, I afterwards discovered that I had no public liability insurance for that time. I am not saying this is the case with all insurance companies but it was for that company at that time.

I came across this tangle a few years ago.

The problem was caused in part because some people had separate buildings policies and contents policies either with the same insurer or different insurers !

The way it used to work was that the public liability section of a buildings policy covered the public liability of the policyholder as a property owner and the contents policy covered the policyholder as a property occupier.

The general public liability / personal liability cover was wrapped up inside the contents cover.

 

[galway_blow_in]

I dont think you are correct here. My insurance ties the public liability to the contents insurance. At one point I had only buildings cover with no contents insurance, I afterwards discovered that I had no public liability insurance for that time. I am not saying this is the case with all insurance companies but it was for that company at that time.

im open to correction as im just going by what ive been told but say for example i had been officially working for this man in the capacity of a tradesman , then in that scenario , his insurance would not cover as i myself would need to have insurance , as is the case with what happened here , its no different to if i had hurt myself helping him empty the dishwasher as a house guest , perhaps this explanation is also flawed

if the mans insurance company proves they do not cover this kind of injury case , then that will be quite different in terms of how this can be dealt with but so far his denials of not having insurance are shaky as he appeared to be trying to fob me off and more importantly from talking to industry people , in the vast majority of cases house - home insurance would cover these kind of situations