UK
Hello to all
We had the misfortune of having our Bosch dishwasher spontaneously combust whilst it was running one evening, catch fire and set alight part of our kitchen.
The local fire brigade attended, put the fire out and assessed the precise cause of the fire, as it is apparently a requirement of the attending FB to do so. They clearly identify the dishwasher as the sole cause of the fire, due to an electrical fault within the dishwasher. They've been pretty precise in their report, which I have a copy of here. There is no doubt, as far as the FB are concerned.
It was subject to an insurance claim, and the loss adjuster of our insurer assessed the losses, as per the t's & c's of the policy, of "only replacing what was physically damaged" - this meant that they would reimburse us for some kitchen units, the fridge, the dishwasher itself, the flooring and other ancilliary smoke damage (we're fortunate that the smoke alarms acted immediately, and the fire damage didn't gut the room).
However, ours is an expensive hand-made kitchen. We've already contacted the manufacturer and it is no longer made, therefore, the affected areas cannot be "made good" with spares / replacements of the affected areas only. Therefore, we either need to replace the entire kitchen, or have part one style, and part the original.
I've recieved advice that I can pursue Bosch for our uninsured losses. At the time, I thought that the task of trying to prove that Bosch were at fault would be very tough, but a little while after the fire, Bosch wrote to use several times with warning notifications, that there was a product recall on our registered dishwasher, as there was a known fault and in a small amount of cases "could cause a fire". Obviously, this came too late for us to act upon having already experienced the fire, but to my mind, this gives us very useful extra evidence that Bosch actually knew that there was a fault with the dishwasher we had. They wouldn't have written to us if they did not believe that there might or could be.
Anyway, long story short, we've written to Bosch several times, and they've passed it off to their loss adjusters for response. The most recent of which is extraordinarily arrogant - totally rejecting the claim - the key elements from their most recent response, are what I'd like to pass by this forum here for their thoughts:
1 - "Res ipsa loquitur" requires that the cause of the incident be unknown, which, based upon your allegations is clearly not the case. In particular, you allege that the dishwasher manufactured by Bosch was defective and caused the fire, you are therefore required to prove that the fire was caused by Bosch's negligence in breach of statutory duty. To this end, we highlight that claims of this nature are causation led and that it is for the Claimant to evidence their claim. This means that you will be required to provide causative evidence in support of your assertions that the fire was caused directly and solely as a result of an inherent manufacturing defect, as opposed to an external factor, wear, tear or mal-use - (I've got the report from the Fire Brigade confirming it was the source, and the lettes from Bosch informing me that they know there's a problem with the dishwasher (the letter was personalised specifically to us, not just a mass mailout)) - therefore WDYT?
2 - Fundamentally, we understand your assessment (not mine, the Fire Brigade's!) of the evidence to be that a fire started in the vicinty of a a Bosch dishwasher and that you received an "Important Safety Notice" from BSH Home Appliances dated July 2011, advising that a limited batch of dishwashers of which the index appliance may or may not have been included, were affected by repair action issued by them. - (The letter from BSH, actually states that "in some instances, the fault will cause a fire) - therefore, WDYT?
3 - To date, the only causative evidence disclosed is an incident report, purported to be from Kent Fire & Rescue Service, which indicates that the fire originated within the vicinity of a Bosch Exxcel dishwasher. Please be advised that such an incident report does not constitute an "expert report" for the purposes of litigtion and specifically, it does not meet the requirements of Part 35 Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the incident report is insufficient for the purposes of determining causation and we note that the appliance has not been subject to a detailed or destructive inspection. - (The report clearly and specifically names the dishwasher as the sole cause, and specifically identifies an electrical fault from within the control panel as the exact cause of the fault within the dishwasher - so everything they've written in this para is rubbish. Also, do you think that Kent Fire & Rescue would be considered "experts" in field of "what started this fire"?
4 - On a without prejudice basis and in respect of the extent of the damages claimed, we highlight that in situations where a liability attaches, the responsbility of Bosch is to indemnify you in respect of damage caused, with damage being defined as a change or alteration in the physical cahracteristics of an item of property. As such, Bosch and their Insurers are legally obliged to only replace the damaged items, as indeed as you own domestic home insurers have done. We appreciate this is a principle which, although legally correct, is not palatable to many home owners. However, Bosch are not legally obliged to affect reinstatement of that which is not damaged. - (This is the para that is causing to me to have a little concern - is this true and correct? The position is that we have to replace the entire kitchen as it is simply not possible to "part replace" it, as we cannot obtain the replacment parts anymore - we've already got confirmation in writing of this from the local distributor of the manufacturer of the kitchen) - therefore WDYT?
Finally, they finish off with "For the avoidance of doubt, liability remains in dispute and specifically, causation remains to be determined" - which is an odd finishing statement of the principle of "liabilty indemnity" applies in any event. We've been open and transparent with them, they've been made aware that this has been subject to an insurance claim, and that we are pursuing them for the uninsured losses not covered by the domestic insurance.
My thought is to just issue against them now, as it's clear that they will stall and wriggle, at every possible turn. I still have a fair amount of time to play with under the statute of limitations, but I think I've now had my fill of this loss adjuster, who I suspect would say that white was black if they could avoid liability by doing so!
Many, many thanks for any responses and thoughts that are given.
Hello to all
We had the misfortune of having our Bosch dishwasher spontaneously combust whilst it was running one evening, catch fire and set alight part of our kitchen.
The local fire brigade attended, put the fire out and assessed the precise cause of the fire, as it is apparently a requirement of the attending FB to do so. They clearly identify the dishwasher as the sole cause of the fire, due to an electrical fault within the dishwasher. They've been pretty precise in their report, which I have a copy of here. There is no doubt, as far as the FB are concerned.
It was subject to an insurance claim, and the loss adjuster of our insurer assessed the losses, as per the t's & c's of the policy, of "only replacing what was physically damaged" - this meant that they would reimburse us for some kitchen units, the fridge, the dishwasher itself, the flooring and other ancilliary smoke damage (we're fortunate that the smoke alarms acted immediately, and the fire damage didn't gut the room).
However, ours is an expensive hand-made kitchen. We've already contacted the manufacturer and it is no longer made, therefore, the affected areas cannot be "made good" with spares / replacements of the affected areas only. Therefore, we either need to replace the entire kitchen, or have part one style, and part the original.
I've recieved advice that I can pursue Bosch for our uninsured losses. At the time, I thought that the task of trying to prove that Bosch were at fault would be very tough, but a little while after the fire, Bosch wrote to use several times with warning notifications, that there was a product recall on our registered dishwasher, as there was a known fault and in a small amount of cases "could cause a fire". Obviously, this came too late for us to act upon having already experienced the fire, but to my mind, this gives us very useful extra evidence that Bosch actually knew that there was a fault with the dishwasher we had. They wouldn't have written to us if they did not believe that there might or could be.
Anyway, long story short, we've written to Bosch several times, and they've passed it off to their loss adjusters for response. The most recent of which is extraordinarily arrogant - totally rejecting the claim - the key elements from their most recent response, are what I'd like to pass by this forum here for their thoughts:
1 - "Res ipsa loquitur" requires that the cause of the incident be unknown, which, based upon your allegations is clearly not the case. In particular, you allege that the dishwasher manufactured by Bosch was defective and caused the fire, you are therefore required to prove that the fire was caused by Bosch's negligence in breach of statutory duty. To this end, we highlight that claims of this nature are causation led and that it is for the Claimant to evidence their claim. This means that you will be required to provide causative evidence in support of your assertions that the fire was caused directly and solely as a result of an inherent manufacturing defect, as opposed to an external factor, wear, tear or mal-use - (I've got the report from the Fire Brigade confirming it was the source, and the lettes from Bosch informing me that they know there's a problem with the dishwasher (the letter was personalised specifically to us, not just a mass mailout)) - therefore WDYT?
2 - Fundamentally, we understand your assessment (not mine, the Fire Brigade's!) of the evidence to be that a fire started in the vicinty of a a Bosch dishwasher and that you received an "Important Safety Notice" from BSH Home Appliances dated July 2011, advising that a limited batch of dishwashers of which the index appliance may or may not have been included, were affected by repair action issued by them. - (The letter from BSH, actually states that "in some instances, the fault will cause a fire) - therefore, WDYT?
3 - To date, the only causative evidence disclosed is an incident report, purported to be from Kent Fire & Rescue Service, which indicates that the fire originated within the vicinity of a Bosch Exxcel dishwasher. Please be advised that such an incident report does not constitute an "expert report" for the purposes of litigtion and specifically, it does not meet the requirements of Part 35 Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the incident report is insufficient for the purposes of determining causation and we note that the appliance has not been subject to a detailed or destructive inspection. - (The report clearly and specifically names the dishwasher as the sole cause, and specifically identifies an electrical fault from within the control panel as the exact cause of the fault within the dishwasher - so everything they've written in this para is rubbish. Also, do you think that Kent Fire & Rescue would be considered "experts" in field of "what started this fire"?
4 - On a without prejudice basis and in respect of the extent of the damages claimed, we highlight that in situations where a liability attaches, the responsbility of Bosch is to indemnify you in respect of damage caused, with damage being defined as a change or alteration in the physical cahracteristics of an item of property. As such, Bosch and their Insurers are legally obliged to only replace the damaged items, as indeed as you own domestic home insurers have done. We appreciate this is a principle which, although legally correct, is not palatable to many home owners. However, Bosch are not legally obliged to affect reinstatement of that which is not damaged. - (This is the para that is causing to me to have a little concern - is this true and correct? The position is that we have to replace the entire kitchen as it is simply not possible to "part replace" it, as we cannot obtain the replacment parts anymore - we've already got confirmation in writing of this from the local distributor of the manufacturer of the kitchen) - therefore WDYT?
Finally, they finish off with "For the avoidance of doubt, liability remains in dispute and specifically, causation remains to be determined" - which is an odd finishing statement of the principle of "liabilty indemnity" applies in any event. We've been open and transparent with them, they've been made aware that this has been subject to an insurance claim, and that we are pursuing them for the uninsured losses not covered by the domestic insurance.
My thought is to just issue against them now, as it's clear that they will stall and wriggle, at every possible turn. I still have a fair amount of time to play with under the statute of limitations, but I think I've now had my fill of this loss adjuster, who I suspect would say that white was black if they could avoid liability by doing so!
Many, many thanks for any responses and thoughts that are given.
