• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Subrogation against tenenat for fire caused by candle.

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

jag787

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Illionois

My homeowner's insurance company is subrogating against my boyfirend for damages they paid to me as a result of a fire in my boyfriend's apartment.

I am a homeowner with a Homeowners' Insurance Policy. I was staying in an apartment with my boyfriend for about 3 months while my house was for sale. I was not on the lease at my boyfriend's apartment.

While I was staying at the apartment, a fire in the apartment caused me and my boyfriend to lose everything. My homeowner's policy covered my loss of my clothing and personal effects that were in the apartment, to the tune of about $33,000. My boyfriend was not insured and has nothing left. Since the fire, we have both moved back to my house.

On the day of the fire and in subsequent interviews, my boyfirend admitted to having lit a candle the morning of the fire and leaving it unattened for about a half hour when he went downstaris to do laundry. It was a 4-inch pillar candle resting on a metal dish made for that purpose, which was sitting on top of a dresser that burned pretty much completely away. The fire broke out while he was in the basment of the apartment building, and he only became aware of the fact that his apartment was on fire when the police and fire department told him. He immediately said he had left a candle burning, and that's what ended up in the police report. The fire department threw a great deal of what burned out the window into the alley, and the building manager had it hauled off before the end of the day. No other apartment units in the building sustained any damage.

Several days after the fire, MY insurance company sent a fire scene investigator to the apartment to determine the cause of the fire. After sifting through everything that was left in the apartment, they told us verbally that there were no remnants of the candle and that they could not determine for certain what cuased the fire. When they interviewed my boyfriend, he admitted to leaving a candle burning while he was downstairs doing laundry.

For whatever reason, neither the building's owner nor their insurance company has contacted my boyfriend about subrogation for the damages to the apartment building.

There are several other potential causes of the fire, in my mind. The person who called the fire department, who was not interviewed by the fire scene investigator, said she saw the air conditioning unit explode out of the window. Also, on the morning of the fire, the cable company had been to the unit to install a computer modem for my laptop computer. The candle had been lit before their arrival. While they were at the apartment, the furniture against the wall where the fire broke out, including the dresser that burned completely (with the candle on it), were moved away from the wall, and placed back into position when they were done. (All of this is described in the fire scene investigator's report.) My boyfriend is not sure what was going on with the candle during all of this - he just knows he never physically blew it out. As soon as the cable company employee left, my boyfriend left the apartment to do the laundry.

Also, my laptop was one of the ones that had a battery that has recently been all over the headlines as causing fires. The laptop was part of what was thrown out the window by the fire department, however, as we saw its half-melted carcess as we were sifting through the stuff in the alley for my boyfriend's wallet before it was hauled away. Although my insurance has covered the laptop, it was not around for the fire scene investigator to inspect.

Finally, the photos taken by both myself and the investigator clearly show a large black "V" on the wall where the fire took place, emanating from the remains of an electrical outlet on the wall, near the cable outlet where the cable company employee had been working that morning. However, the investigator's report said that the remains of the electrical artifacts, power cords, etc. he found were "directionally and externally heat-damaged, and thus eliminated as a potential cause of the fire incident".

The report then states "Further examination of the apartment revealed no additional areas of fire origination."

The report then goes on to describe interviews with myself, my boyfriend, and the building manager, which talks about everything I have already summarized. Finally, the report concludes as follows: "Based on an extensive scene examination, burn pattern analysis, artifacts examined at the scene and interviews, it is my considered opinion that this fire originated at floor level along the east wall of the apartment and was due to open flame ignition of available combustibles by an unattended candle".

The underlining in the above sentence was not in the report, but was done by me to point out that, although the photos of the "V" on the wall certainly make it look like the fire started at floor level, one thing my boyfriend is certain about beyond any doubt is that the candle was never at floor level.

Currently the subrogation contractors hired by my insurance company have not recommended litigation yet - they are still in the information-gathering stage. All they have requested so far from my boyfriend is a statement that he had no insurance at the time, and that he does not consider himself responsible for the damages. My boyfriend sent that letter via certified mail less than a week ago.

What are my boyfriend's chances here? Doesn't the insurance company have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my boyfried caused the fire in order to collect that kind of money from him? At what point should he get a lawyer involved? If this does go to litigation, is this the type of thing that goes to trial with a jury and everything, or is it handled by lawyers and a judge?

Thanks for any insight you can provide!
 


You Are Guilty

Senior Member
What are my boyfriend's chances here?
No one can answer that.
Doesn't the insurance company have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my boyfried caused the fire in order to collect that kind of money from him?
Nope. "Preponderance of the evidence" is the standard used. Meaning, if they prove it was just barely, a teensy-weensy bit more likely that he caused it than some other method, he loses.
At what point should he get a lawyer involved?
As soon as he wants to.
If this does go to litigation, is this the type of thing that goes to trial with a jury and everything, or is it handled by lawyers and a judge?
I believe he'd be entitled to a jury if he requested one (and paid the jury fee) for this type of case.
Thanks for any insight you can provide!
From what you've written, my personal opinion is your boyfriend might want to start shopping for a paddle, because he appears to be up you-know-what creek.
 

jag787

Junior Member
Is it really that bad?!

So, are you suggesting that he should just pay it? Is it worth getting a lawyer at all, or is it an open-and-shut automatically-guilty type of case? In your experience, is their a hope of a settlement at a lesser amount?! Thanks!
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
So, are you suggesting that he should just pay it? Is it worth getting a lawyer at all, or is it an open-and-shut automatically-guilty type of case? In your experience, is their a hope of a settlement at a lesser amount?! Thanks!
One would have to review every facet of this case, including all the documents and reports, before coming to a conclusion like that. However, you can't get blood from a stone - if the BF has no assets, that might be a viable negotiating tool if some sort of settlement is desired.

Otherwise, should they file a lawsuit, he'd definately be better served by hiring an attorney to defend him. While it's a low standard of proof, it still remains the insurance company's burden to prove that the BF and his candle are the cause. So there are going to be areas to contest at trial, and potentially a number of other defenses that would be revealed upon a complete review of the file. That's why if he's planning on getting a lawyer, "the sooner, the better" applies.

Good luck.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
Your homeowner's insurance is going to want to get paid. They insured you while you were out of the house for 3 MONTHS? Wow! Generally, they cancel your coverage after your house has been vacant. Instead of declining to pay your claim (which would have left BOTH of you with nothing), they stepped up and paid, knowing that they had plenty of opportunities to decline. They want their money back. Which would you rather have? Give them the 33K back, that you technically didn't qualify for, and have them cancel your HO insurance, or sue the boyfriend for his mistake?

added: Generally, personal property away from the insured residence is covered for no more than 10% of the amount listed on the dec page, which means that your personal property on your dec page is $330k. Is that correct?!?!?!?

Also, an insurance company will cancel/nonrenew a policy for leaving the property vacant for more than 30 days.
 
Last edited:

jag787

Junior Member
Actually, I would rather have never received the settlement than to have my boyfriend sued! I never expected to be covered at all, but just called my agent to let her know what happened, and was told that I would be covered. And yes, the $33,000 is the cap as subjected to the 10% maximum in the policy. The clothing that was covered was all physically viewed by my adjuster - it was heavily smoke-damaged but not burned to s crisp. It was expenseive stuff, and that's why the payout was so high.

Nothing was ever mentioned about my not living in the house for 3 months - I never knew it was an issue. I was at the house all day every weekend, and my realtor is there almost on a daily basis. It's not like the house was truly deserted!

Now most of the $33,000 is spent. Had I known this was coming, I would have shopped a lot more Old Navy and a lot less Barney's so that I would have had some money left to help him pay my own settlement back! Had I not received this settlement from my insurance company, I would have been fine shopping for the basic necessities along the way, and replacing the finer things in my wardrobe at a much slower pace as I could afford them.

Anyway, I think that's all water under the bridge at this point. This issue I am now concerned with is what my boyfriend's chances are against this claim.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
I understand that its water under the bridge right now. I'm surprised, though, that a person who has 330k in personal property on their insurance policy (therefore, how the heck much is their actual HOUSE covered for?), didn't expect their insurance company to subrogate, AND has a boyfriend who couldn't afford a renter's policy for a couple hundred bucks a year.


He needs an attorney. Or $33k. Whichever is cheaper.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top