Insurance payouts - Page 3

dazza70 wrote on Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:17pm:

Just an update. My insurance Co are now saying they won't payout. They have no liability for accidental damage as the builder has intentionally damaged our property. They say its subsidence which is not covered. I have legal cover so they have made an allowance for legal fees which will not cover...

Read more...

... our costs. We are devastated 

aceq8 wrote on Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:46pm:

It is so disappointing to   hear this  litany of   excuses and    untruths  spouted by your Insurer.

Firstly   Accidental damage in a policy refers to  the Policyholder  i.e.   Is it accidental as far as you are concerned.?  If so then it is accidental damage as far as the policy   is concerned.   The fact that someone did it deliberatel...

Read more...

...y  would not   negate  policy liability  but  would allow the Insurer, once they have  settled your claim,  then  to    pursue  legal action against the perpetrator.

 Form the circumstances you previously outlined  the  damage  is not  subsidence..   It seems like they  are hoping they  can bully  you into giving up  with your claim.  The policy  will include  a procedure for making a formal complaint to them and  then if you are still not satisfied  you can   appeal  the decision.   I would suggest that you   speak with your solicitor    to  progress  the claim but make sure that he/she  follows  the  specified   policy   complaints  procedure   before  actually  going  to court. 

dazza70 wrote on Mon Jul 17, 2023 6:45pm:

Well. Insurer won't cover they say its been caused by the constructor not doing his job properly and that it's down to him to pay.  We have legal assistance and have to go to court thus week next week sometime never.

Devastated

aceq8 wrote on Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:28pm:

  Challenge   the Insurer  when they say   they wont cover  you because  the contractor was not doing his job properly.  Most if not all   " accidents " are caused because someone was not    paying attention  e.g.  car acc...

Read more...

...idents, workplace injuries,   fires caused by not watching   the cooking process or  overheated appliances, blocked drains because someone threw   inappropriate items  down the  pipe,,  burst pipes due to no maintenance, , the list goes on.     This is EXACTLY why people  buy   material damage policies to cover   damage to their property instead of   going to court  every time there is  a problem.   The customer buys the policy   so that an Insurer    compensates them for the cost of   repair and then  , if they can the Insurer  will try to recover   from the  guilty party.  I f we  all had to  sue every time there  was damage then there would be no point in  buying the insurance!!    

If your broker thinks  they are correct then frankly  you need a new broker  ,  You can always  inform the broker   that  you are considering    suing them for negligent  advice and   recommend  to them  that they notify  their  own  professional indemnity insurer   of the potential claim.. Then watch them   dive  for cover because  if you  issue that in a formal  email or letter     they will have to  tell their own PI  insurer of a potential claim   and  then   they  will have to declare that  in all future  renewals     which  will skyrocket their  premium  and cost them money.   They may then treat this matter   seriously and competently

aceq8 wrote on Tue Jul 18, 2023 8:28am:

 For clarity    I should say that   the problem caused  by the contractor  is known  for construction insurance  purposes as  Removal or Weakening of Support   (You  can  Google   it  for more info).   ...

Read more...

...Also  in the UK    there is    a national  form of  construction contract  known as JCT and  its  Clause  6.5.1 requires insurance to be arranged in respect of any expense, liability, loss, claim or proceedings which the Employer may incur or sustain to any property (arising out of the contract works) caused by:

CollapseSubsidenceHeaveVibrationWeakening or removal of supportLowering of groundwater Whilst this  contract  document applies in the  UK (and I do not know the   construction market in Spain) you can  clearly see that    the  UK construction and insurance industry  accepts  that there is  a difference  between   removal or weakening of support  and  subsidence.  If you  do an internet search on  removal  or weakening of support  and also JCT  you will find  many    articles by  international insurers    specifically referring to the subject  and   clearly differentiating  between     removal or weakening of support  and subsidence.  You may even find that your  own Insurer is ,  or is owned by one of those companies, explaining   the difference  on the internet.  If so that  would be  very interesting to see how they  can  explain their stance on your claim.  

dazza70 wrote on Tue Jul 18, 2023 11:08am:

Hi well the plot thickens I have been informed that they are not brokers but agents for Liberty Seguros and that Liberty themselves provide them with PI insurance l have insisted l have sight of this. Let's see what happens now. I am putting this in writing to them now and using some info from yo...

Read more...

...ur email.  They have just sent me the insurance terms to action the official complaints procs.

K rgds

Gill

Stephanie86 wrote on Tue Jul 18, 2023 1:44pm:

This seems curiouser and curiouser. Liberty Seguros are very well known and highly reputable. Their version of accidental damage may be different to our understanding of it.

If aceq8 is willing, it may be worth forwarding their cover specifications to him just to ask his opinion?

dazza70 wrote on Tue Jul 18, 2023 2:12pm:

Thanks l will have a think on it

aceq8 wrote on Tue Jul 18, 2023 2:39pm:

   Hi  

 I am  willing to look at the  policy if you wish.   Now that  i know  you are insured with Liberty  I found a   copy of   one of their Home Insurance policies issued in 2018    (Titled  Liberty Premium Home in case they&n...

Read more...

...bsp; wish to  check it)  which contains  Clause A10  as  shown in the   photo      It thus seems  strange  that they  will agree  in the  case  of a Clause A10 loss to pay 100% if  the   house collapses but not apparently  now   for partial damage  and also  they   accept that  damage is caused by neighbouring construction activities and  do not class it as  subsidence      You  should ask them to  explain the different     policy interpretations  to what is  basically the   same  cause of  loss.