Damaged Garage Door of Property We Rent - after Some Insurance Advice

reszo on 30/09/2019 - 15:47
Last edited 02/10/2019 - 14:12 by 1 other user

Hi all - after some tenant / damage advice.

We damaged the 2 lower panels in the garage door in the property that we are renting (hit it with the car) Spoke to B&D doors on the phone (the door manufacturer) and they suggest that since its a special colour etc, they would need to replace entire door for between $1800 and $2400 - cannot replace just the damaged panels as the colour won't match. The agent also got 2 more quotes for 4k+ - some price gouging, but all good so far.

I was under the impression that we would go through the homeowners landlord insurance. We pay the excess (as we admit fault), door is repaired, and everything is back to normal. However they sent me the following.

LANDLORD INSURANCE
Tenant DOES NOT PAY EXCESS, Landlord pays the excess to the insurance company, the insurance company will pay for the repair and will chase you for any costs they have incurred as you damaged the door

YOUR CAR INSURANCE
If you claim through your car insurance which you can you pay the excess and insurance will cover the rest, there will be no further claim made on you

I hope this helps you decide, it is a far cheaper outcome for you to claim through your own insurance, xxxx has the two quotes for you, I suggest you pass on to your insurance company as soon as possible so the door can be fixed

I did not want to go through the car insurance route to not impact my no claim bonus and I have a $1000 excess. A work colleague suggested $800 excess for homeowner insurance. I don't trust the agent at all - we have had multiple issues in the past that were only resolved once I had booked a court date. I spent most of the day researching, but am even more confused.

Can those of you with experienced in this area suggest which way I should go?

Thanks

Update

Thanks all for replying. Seems like a case of NFI from my part. Will call up my car insurance and go from there

Home & Garden

Comments

HighAndDry on 30/09/2019 - 16:04

+7

What you were told is how insurance works. If you crash into someone else's car, they will pay excess, claim, and their insurance gets the actual damages from you or your insurance.

Exactly the same here.
- o53djz7qTPY4der on 30/09/2019 - 16:11
  
  +3
  
  Yep. If the OP wants to just pay the LL excess they are relying on the LL's goodwill (who's premiums will go up in this scenario). Given they mentioned a court date, I suspect the owner has no goodwill to give.
  
  If I were the owner I would probably just pay the excess for my insurance and let them recover their costs from you. At least I know it will be done properly.
  
  Either claim on your insurance or pay the $1800-2400.
  - HighAndDry on 30/09/2019 - 16:24
    
    Yep. If the OP wants to just pay the LL excess they are relying on the LL's goodwill (who's premiums will go up in this scenario).
    
    I'm not even sure this is an option for the landlord. As part of the insurance contract, by making a claim (and being paid out by insurance), the landlord assigns its rights in regards to the claim to the insurer. The insurer will have the option of pursuing OP or not, it's out of the landlord's hands at that point, unless they want to risk their payout and lie to their insurer.
    - o53djz7qTPY4der on 30/09/2019 - 17:54
      
      unless they want to risk their payout and lie to their insurer
      
      I was kind of alluding to this being the case. Perhaps if you were on good terms there might be a slight chance of the LL taking the hit for you (unlikely).
      
      What ssquid said is spot on. Something I had overlooked.
  - ssquid on 30/09/2019 - 16:34
    
    +1
    
    If the OP wants to just pay the LL excess they are relying on the LL's goodwill
    
    It would be very unwise for a tenant to accept this "generous" offer. They could end up paying for both the landlord's insurance claim (the excess) and the full replacement cost when the insurance company finds them liable for the damage.
Randxyz123 on 30/09/2019 - 16:10

Have you got renters insurance?

How do you know the home owners excess is $800?

I don’t see why they would make a claim causing their insurance premium to go up? I’ve also never heard of someone’s excess being paid by the at fault party??

Unless they can make a “not at fault claim” similar to a car accident claim.
AdosHouse on 30/09/2019 - 16:11

+3

Did you think that the landlord insurance wouldn't chase you for the money back? That's not how this works. They will want their money back.

Either claim through your car insurance or pay for the door.
Fier2 on 30/09/2019 - 16:21

+1

It will be cheaper for you to claim through your car insurance than asking the landlord. As the agent said, they got the rightto go after you for the total cost which means that it s up to the homeowner to choose if they want to go through their home insurance or just pass you the total cost whithout going tbrough their insurance wgich can be really costly for you.
Ryanek on 30/09/2019 - 16:23

+11

I did not want to go through the car insurance route to not impact my no claim bonus

This will impact the landlords future insurance if you go via the landlords insurance route. Higher premiums for sure.
- knobbs on 30/09/2019 - 16:49
  
  +8
  
  Yeah I read that and was like you want him to pay higher premiums but not you?
- wizzy on 30/09/2019 - 17:06
  
  +2
  
  This was exactly my first thought too!
- boomramada on 01/10/2019 - 09:17
  
  Maybe landlord let him use the landlord insurance and increase the rent to cover higher premium, then all be happy right ?😀
j4ice on 30/09/2019 - 16:28

removed
please see Ryanek's comment
redforever on 30/09/2019 - 16:32

yeah. The LL would prob claim from his insurance if you do a runner. The insurance will still come after you.
salmon123 on 30/09/2019 - 18:05

-6

You should also do some groundwork and try to haggle with the landlord, to get a used door installed. Unless you're living in a newish place, there's no reason why the garage door needs to be a brand new replacement. There's plenty available for free or almost nothing, from demolition sales, you'd just have to pay a few hundred dollars in labour. Of course the landlord has the upperhand in this situation, so crying poor is probably your best bet.

Another thing no one has mentioned is that you don't need to lodge a claim from your car insurance straight away.

Let the landlord claim through his insurance, wait for their insurer to ask you for the money and then let you car insurer deal with it. This will give you the opportunity to haggle with the landlord's insurer and if you can't reach an agreement, then you can let your car insurer deal with it, if you can't reach an agreement. Often you can settle with an insurer for much less than the original claim, if the payment is swift.

You should check your car policy to see what your obligations are in terms on notifying them of a potential claim, etc, if you go down this path.
- salmon123 on 30/09/2019 - 22:25
  
  -3
  
  Not sure why people are negging me. If the landlord was to pursue the tennat through *CAT, the most they'd get is 40% (2/5 panels) of the depreciated value of the door. Instead the landlord is going to let their insurance company loose on the tennant who's going to purse them for the cost of a new door, that's been inflated and then some more.
  
  OP needs to be smart about it, otherwise he's going to get reamed.
  - boomramada on 01/10/2019 - 09:32
    
    +1
    
    So if I accidentally make a dent on your car for example. I can just patch it with a $2 spray paint from Bunnings and argue your car is old as that what it's
    worth with deprecation?
    - salmon123 on 01/10/2019 - 10:18
      
      I can just patch it with a $2 spray paint from Bunnings and argue your car is old as that what it's
      worth with deprecation?
      
      No - but if we're doing an apple-for-apples comparison, I'd happily accept a used door from a wrecker in good condition and do it without involving an insurance company. Heck, in this scenario, the insurance company would probably give me a used door anyway and decide they can shake down the other guy for the cost of a brand new door.
      
      People just aren't sensible and reasonable once the figure out its an insurance job, they think it's a free-for-all.
  - [Deactivated] on 01/10/2019 - 10:02
    
    Not sure why people are negging me.
    
    Seriously.
    
    OP damages the landlord's property and you're suggesting making it as hard as possible to receive compensation.
    
    Unless the landlord is being unreasonable, ie asking for more than the damage to the door, the request to have the door restored to a satisfactory condition with the consistent cosmetic presentation fit for an exposed facade, is completely reasonable.
    - salmon123 on 01/10/2019 - 10:20
      
      OP damages the landlord's property and you're suggesting making it as hard as possible to receive compensation.
      
      If you bothered to read my post, the landlord will receive full and proper remediation from his insurance company. The end.
      
      I just gave the OP some tips on how to minimize their cost.
      - [Deactivated] on 01/10/2019 - 11:52
        
        @salmon123:
        
        If you bothered to read my post, the landlord will receive full and proper remediation from his insurance company.
        
        I read it. The landlord shouldn't have to claim from his insurance as he can deal directly with the tenant.
        
        It is no different than a traffic collision. Just because the other person is insured doesn't mean you can weasel your way out of it.
        
        salmon123 on 01/10/2019 - 14:51
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        The landlord shouldn't have to claim from his insurance as he can deal directly with the tenant.
        
        Isn't that what I said? Do the ground work … find a used door as a replacement …
        
        Just because the other person is insured doesn't mean you can weasel your way out of it.
        
        If it come to a shake-down from an insurance company, which is exactly what is, then yes, you need to get your gloves on and figure out a way out.
        
        [Deactivated] on 01/10/2019 - 16:07
        
        @salmon123: "The landlord shouldn't have to claim from his insurance as he can deal directly with the tenant."
        
        Isn't that what I said? Do the ground work … find a used door as a replacement …
        
        Nope.
        
        Let the landlord claim through his insurance, wait for their insurer to ask you for the money and then let you car insurer deal with it.
        
        That's what you said. Without much inference, you're quite directly encouraging minimal cooperation until a third party comes in to seek compensation on the landlord's behalf when the landlord is currently looking to deal directly with the tenant. Furthermore, you're saying once contacted by a third party, in this case the insurer, OP should refer them to yet another third/fourth party.
        
        salmon123 on 01/10/2019 - 17:23
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Nope.
        
        "You should also do some groundwork and try to haggle with the landlord, to get a used door installed"
        
        Maybe you just have trouble reading.
        
        Furthermore, you're saying once contacted by a third party, in this case the insurer, OP should refer them to yet another third/fourth party.
        
        I said haggle with the landlord's insurer and if you can't reach a settlement, let you car insurer take over.
        
        Better get those eye's checked.
        
        [Deactivated] on 01/10/2019 - 17:40
        
        @salmon123:
        
        You should also do some groundwork and try to haggle with the landlord, to get a used door installed.
        
        Why would the landlord want to haggle? Of course this is likely to have a poor outcome. If someone hit your car on the road and you get a quote for repairs, you'd hate it too if someone "haggled" with you.
        
        If the landlord's insurer has to pursue the tenant, the landlord is now out of pocket for excess and/or premium increase.
        
        According to your logic, the tenant should offer an unsatisfactory sum, have the landlord pay their excess just to have the insurer to collect from the tenant.
        
        The landlord doesn't have to suffer any financial loss here but your idea of rectifying damage is either:
        1. Landlord accepts mismatch panels
        2. Landlord accepts partial compensation for repairs
        3. Landlord pays excess
        
        Either way, you seem determined for the landlord to suffer losses.
        
        salmon123 on 01/10/2019 - 17:48
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Why would the landlord want to haggle?
        
        There's the crux of the problem. If the landlord is a reasonable person, they wont be after a new door for an old door. They would accept a used door to replace their used door that's been damaged. That's what I mean by haggling.
        
        The landlord isn't entitled to a new door. His insurance company may very well give him a new door, but it's the OPs responsibility to improve the landlord's property by replacing a door that he damaged with a new door.
        
        xCAT understand this scenario very well. Insurers probably understand it, but might go with a new door anyway, given they can probably recover some of the cost from the OP and they probably don't have any expertise is sourcing and fitting second hand garage doors (although they have a lot of expertise in second hand car parts, now). This is a shake down and the OP should be prepared to fight it.
        
        Now if you can't get your head around what I'm saying, then go head and lodge an insurance claim with your insurer.
        
        Landlord accepts mismatch panels
        
        I haven't mentioned mis-matched panels anywhere … get your eyes checked, son.
        
        [Deactivated] on 01/10/2019 - 19:26
        
        +1
        
        @salmon123: OP already mentioned that the partial replacement or replacement with parts from another door would result in mismatched panels.
        
        cannot replace just the damaged panels as the colour won't match.
        
        No opthalmic based mockery required.
        
        If you hit my car, just because it has been off the yard and has lost 20% saleable value, it doesn't mean you get to pay for 80% of damage.
        
        Unlike carpets and drapes, one does not expect to replace a garage door on a schedule. It is considered part of the building.
        
        My house cannot be insured for "market value" of the building. It has to be insured at cost to replace. The garage door is part of the house. Carpets and drapes are still subject to depreciation through wear. Garage door is not.
        
        salmon123 on 01/10/2019 - 19:41
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        If you hit my car, just because it has been off the yard and has lost 20% saleable value, it doesn't mean you get to pay for 80% of damage.
        
        Now your comparing a new car to an old one. If the landlord has a brand new garage door or even a near new one, then yes he should get a new one, but he doesn't, because he can't get a colour match, so yes, a used door is fine give the facts presented.
        
        It has to be insured at cost to replace
        
        That's only because an insurance companies like to collect premiums on higher insured amounts. Try making a claim and see what they actually pay out.
        
        [Deactivated] on 01/10/2019 - 19:43
        
        @salmon123: They actually pay out cost to replace. They will try to weasel their way out but the reasons wouldn't be "your house is old."
        
        They'll try to attribute the damage to the house to negligence/malpractice or some technicality.
        
        salmon123 on 01/10/2019 - 19:44
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        They will try to weasel their way out
        
        So you basically agree with me, I'm not sure what you're arguing about now.
        
        [Deactivated] on 01/10/2019 - 19:49
        
        @salmon123: No. There's an important distinction.
        
        The insurer isn't going to withhold full compensation due to age or condition. They will try to reduce compensation due to negligence, ie. incorrect installation, unlicensed installer, lack of mantainance.
        
        salmon123 on 01/10/2019 - 19:56
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        The insurer isn't going to withhold full compensation due to age or condition
        
        That's just speculation. I beg to differ.
        
        [Deactivated] on 01/10/2019 - 20:06
        
        @salmon123: It isn't speculation. It is legal requirement as homes are a typically a collateral for other loans. If insurance is based of wear and tear, the risk on a home loan, the most common loan, increases with time.
        
        It is not speculation. It is necessary for our system to exist.
        
        Ps. If you don't believe me, just ask any loan officer.
        
        salmon123 on 01/10/2019 - 21:08
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Ps. If you don't believe me, just ask any loan officer.
        
        Let me guess, you're a loan officer?
        
        If insurance is based of wear and tear, the risk on a home loan, the most common loan, increases with time.
        
        Not really, because you'd hope people pay it off faster than it depreciates to $0 … oh wait, houses don't depreciate to 0, but that's a separate thread.
        
        [Deactivated] on 01/10/2019 - 21:16
        
        @salmon123: Houses/homes don't depreciate to 0 because there is the value of the land.
        
        Investment houses don't depreciate to 0 but neither do they fall under the category of a home loan.
        
        I'm not a loan officer but I've dealt with them extensively. There's no way I will be able to take as many loans if my assets aren't insured for the value of the loan. This is common knowledge.
        
        salmon123 on 01/10/2019 - 22:36
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        There's no way I will be able to take as many loans if my assets aren't insured for the value of the loan.
        
        huh? They want you to get a home policy to cover the value of the loan?
robbyjones on 30/09/2019 - 18:14

+1

If I was the Landlord there is no way I would want to lodge a claim with the tenant in-situ, be careful you may find yourself out of a home to live in. You will probably find that your lease requires you to make restitution at your own cost and not involve the landlords input. You damaged the property just pay for it to be fixed.
theHMASfriendship on 30/09/2019 - 18:20

+4

Use your car insurance.
Kaz0551 on 30/09/2019 - 18:29

Where are you based? FixYourGarageDoor in Sydney will be half of B&D… Shaun has done 6 garage doors for me
Nice one baby on 30/09/2019 - 22:58

OP is at fault with hitting the door so wouldn't the landlord not even be asked for the excess from his insurance company as the whole cost of repair would end up being recovered from OP?
- ssquid on 30/09/2019 - 23:08
  
  +1
  
  The whole idea of landlord insurance is to protect you against damage done by other people, it doesn't include the "not at fault" stuff.
  - Nice one baby on 01/10/2019 - 00:45
    
    Cheers
ozhunter on 01/10/2019 - 00:51

+5

I did not want to go through the car insurance route to not impact my no claim bonus and I have a $1000 excess.

Do you always expect the other party to use their insurance when your at fault?

Why did you get car insurance in the first place?
- [Deactivated] on 01/10/2019 - 12:43
  
  Obviously so he doesn't get audited by ozbargain.

Damaged Garage Door of Property We Rent - after Some Insurance Advice

Update

Comments

New Forum Topics