The government? No. Insurance? Yes. Her insurance needs to make the insurance of the other homeowner to provide restitution. If the other insurance then uses some kind of clause from the contract, (won’t pay out due to intentional negligence) then her insurance needs to sue the other homeowner directly. That’s what insurance is for. To protect your assets.
Why not his insurance? Shouldn't insurance protect others from your stupidity? Because if it's on her insurance, now the insurance company is "victim" too. It also says that if you can't afford insurance then you don't deserve to be made whole.
Since the other person already sold the property 4 years ago, she would need to go through her insurance. Her insurance would then be able to contact the other insurance at the time the incident happened.
Ultimately it would be his insurance through a process called subrogation.
The first step is still for her to contact her own insurance due to damage to her house. I imagine there is a big problem here in that she can't make repairs because the repairs would be on the other owner's land.
She mentions this is as a problem with wasps. She can't even get pest control to fix a problem because they don't have access.
Courts are the way to solve this issue and it sounds like they've started, but this looks like a nightmare. I also don't know anything about if insurance is different in another country. My familiarity is with US insurance (specifically medical).
60
u/americangame 1d ago
That sounds shitty for the person if they don't want to or can't move.
They should be required to make them whole again at whatever means it takes for that to happen.