Liability for fire in the kitchen

October 20, 2009 6:18 AM

Less than a year ago, my SO left a pan on the stove and the rental house burned. Now, the owner's insurance company wants her to pay.

The renter's insurance (same company as owner's insurance company) lapsed less than a week before the fire through a mix-up/misunderstanding. I'm thinking that isn't a significant point since that policy only have covered SO's personal contents, right?

Insurance company has made two offers ($10,000 at first; now $5,000) for SO to pay them part of the money paid to the owner. If SO does not accept within 30 days, the subrogation unit will refer it to the legal department to recover the full amount ($68,000).

I know you are not SO's lawyer, but what is a reasonable expectation for the end result? Does SO's carelessness necessarily mean negligence? Only a court can determine that?

SO does not have the money to hire a lawyer, but has a consultation appointment this week. What suggestions do you have? How should SO proceed?

This is definitely not the first time this has happened, hive mind, but it is SO's first (and hopefully last) time and SO is shocked and scared.

posted by anonymous to law & government (13 comments total)

(a) You need a lawyer.
(b) I think you're far from screwed here, but see (a).
(c) This seems hinky -- especially since they're lowballing and only using the full amount as a threat, which indicates a weak case on their end, but see (a).
(d) There are free legal resources for people in these sorts of situations around the world, which should be kept in mind when seeing (a).
(e) See (a).
posted by Shepherd at 6:29 AM on October 20 [3 favorites]

IANAL but... you need a lawyer.

Either this is legally valid or it isn't. If it is, then the limited time offer is a reasonable and acceptable one. If it is not, the insurance company is coming on heavy to recoup some of its losses.

Seconding Shepherd - look for a charity/free resource offering legal advice. If that fails, call up the 10 biggest law firms in your city and ask to speak to the partner in charge of pro bono work - most, if not all, will have some kind of pro bono program running.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:37 AM on October 20

They got my ex SO with "Smoke Damage" same thing happened, for $10,000. She never paid, they finally stopped asking.
posted by Benzle at 6:55 AM on October 20

This is why you do not let your insurance lapse. Renter's insurance also provides liability coverage and with that comes a free lawyer. Anyway, it sounds as if your SO is essentially judgement proof. The insurance company could easily spend tens of thousands of dollars pursuing a claim against her and then not receive any money because she doesn't have any money. I would offer $1,000 and work toward somewhere in between. When making the offer she should state flatly that she could not pay $5K even if she wanted to. She shouldn't do anything though prior to her consult with the attorney.
posted by caddis at 6:58 AM on October 20

Consulting with your lawyer is a good idea.

I also think it's odd that they are only asking for $5,000 on what they claim is $68,000 of damages. It could be because their case is weak, or it could be because they think they will have a hard time collecting from you. Perhaps you could negotiate lower. Make sure you do so in a way that doesn't admit liability (talk to your lawyer).

If you decide you do want to settle, perhaps you should suggest a payment plan. Don't take out a loan to pay this off; they should take on the risk of the debt.
posted by grouse at 7:11 AM on October 20

I think you need to get a lawyer to evaluate how much of a case they may have, but just on the surface it certainly doesn't seem like $5k to make even the slim possibility of $50k+ in damages go away is that bad a deal. You'd probably pay that much fighting it in lawyers' fees if they did take even a totally meritless case to court. (Assuming it wasn't so meritless that you could go after them for expenses, but I doubt they're quite that stupid.)

So the usual advice applies, I think: local/state Bar association, referral, free consultation, talk it over.

Also, I'd be careful extrapolating from anyone else's experience that occurred more than even a few months ago; I've heard that the current state of the insurance industry has led many companies to be far more aggressive with subrogation than they were previously. (This was in relation to auto claims, but insofar as many of the companies are the same I don't see why it wouldn't apply more generally.) Be careful and stay on top of things, don't let them slip or assume that it's too small for someone to spend an absurd amount of time on.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:23 AM on October 20

You definitely need to talk to an insurance lawyer about this, but my first instinct is that they are making you a reasonable offer that will save you untold grief and legal bills, and you should accept it. Leaving a pot on the stove is negligent, I'm afraid.
posted by Dasein at 7:33 AM on October 20

Why should she be liable? This was an accident, and isn't that what the insurance if for in the first place? At most, the owner should be able to ask for the deductible to be paid. (of course, that could be a lot)
I'd talk to a lawyer about it, too.
posted by SLC Mom at 7:55 AM on October 20

Nthing talk to a lawyer.

IANALawyer, but related anecdote: a friend owned a condo unit that burned down because of his tenant's negligence, and took some other units out with it. No one was hurt. A few years later, he got a request for some amount in the tens of thousands from another unit's owner, and called his lawyer about it. His lawyer asked him if it was sent certified- it wasn't- asked how many other people had gotten that letter (his tenant, the condo association, anyone else who could reasonably be blamed) and then told him they were likely just fishing to see if he'd bite. He was told to ignore it until it seemed like they meant it, and he never heard from them again.

Maybe the insurance company is trying something like this with your SO- but a lawyer is going to have a much better idea if that's the case, and will know how to appropriately respond. Your SO should wait to panic or pay up at least until they've had their consultation.
posted by charmedimsure at 8:49 AM on October 20

Why should she be liable? This was an accident, and isn't that what the insurance if for in the first place?

The insurance company is pursuing her on behalf of the owner; it's just a coincidence that she also had a policy with the same company. She would have been covered by her own renters' insurance, except that she let is lapse. Insurance companies take care of the costs of their policyholders; then they try to recoup their own costs by going after the person who caused the damage. In this case, that person, the OP's SO, doesn't have any insurance. I think she's lucky they're willing to settle for a lot less than the cost of damage, which they're doing basically to avoid the costs of litigation on their side.
posted by Dasein at 8:56 AM on October 20

I've been through similar (Roommate left a candle burning at a Halloween party while I was not there, I came home to a house burned down, and I was named in the lawsuit).

It is in the best interest of the Owner's Insurance Company to at least TRY to get some money back - that's what insurance companies do, they make money, and when they lose some to a payout, they will try to recover it in other ways, like a lawsuit. If they can get $68,000, they are very happy. If they can get $5,000, it's better than nothing. If they didn't try, they would be out of business very quickly, or at the very least throwing money away.

My case was over 10 years ago, but the end result was that they dropped the suit when several things became apparent: 1) I had a lawyer (Family friend), 2) I wasn't present at the time it happened (making my liability lower), and 3) the other two tenants (who did not have a lawyer) had NO money. Basically, the cost of the suit going forward wasn't worth the winnings they would have gotten.

Getting a lawyer is the single best thing you can do - not only does it protect you, but if they have to work to get the money, it's less appealing to them. Nthing all of the "Get a Lawyer" advice above.
posted by GJSchaller at 9:11 AM on October 20

So, you're going to want to be prepared for your meeting w/ your lawyer. There will be some form of Legal Aid in your area; they often have lots of tenant expertise.
- Was SO required by lease to maintain insurance?
- You'll need a copy of the lease
- and copy of all correspondence, and notes from any meetings
- Was SO unusually negligent, i.e., left open container of paint thinner atop active stove burner covered in oily rags? Make sure lawyer coaches SO on how to talk to insurance sharks.
posted by theora55 at 10:13 AM on October 20

Just pointing out, in order to be liable for negligence in tort, you don't need to be unusually negligent (that's recklessness). You just need to fail to exercise ordinary care, and that breach needs to cause damages. Also, SLC mom is right, that's what insurance is for, but here the SO didn't have insurance. The landlord did, but that policy hardly ever covers tenants as well. That's what the (lapsed) rental insurance was for.
posted by craven_morhead at 11:01 AM on October 20