Does anyone know. I have suffered major damage as a result of demolition and excavation. My insurance company accept this they have sent assesors however the builder that has caused the damage denies its his fault although it is very clear he has caused it by very deep excavation. They are taking them to court. Does anyone know if I will have to wait for the court outcome b4 they carry out the repairs ? This could mean l have to wait years. The owner next door is russian and with the sanctions l think it's an issue to get money out of russia to spain. This could take years so devastated by this. If anyone has any advice on this it would be very appreciated. Thanks Gill

I agree that you should speak with your insurer about the procedure. If they have admitted that it is admissible under the policy then they should pay for the cost of repairing your damage. Whether they can claim back the cost of the damage is an issue for them only and should not affect your claim under the policy. This is one of the advantages of buying insurance as you only have to demonstrate that a loss has occurred and is covered by the policy. Legal action against Third Parties who may have caused the damage is then a matter for the Insurer to pursue independently to reduce their loss

Insurance payouts - Page 4

Page 4 of 4:
Previous
1
2
3
4

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2023 3:29pm

aceq8

Posts: 15

7 helpful points

Location: La Zenia

Joined: 26 Nov 2020

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2023 3:29pm

Stephanie86 wrote on Tue Jul 18, 2023 2:45pm:
I agree entirely. I do not see how they can avoid payment for partial damage especially as they mention third party works?
Can they be relying on the definition being only if specifically stated, partial damage not being mentioned?

I raised the issue to show that there is inconsistency with their statements to you and what has been inserted into a different policy regarding the causation of loss and that they clearly accepted that neighbouring construction work can cause damage and that it is not subsidence. Whether partial or 100% damage would be irrelevant as it is the cause that is important . A previous policy is not binding on your claim and it is the actual policy wording that you have which is the basis of the contract between you and Liberty. Thus it is necessary to check what your wording says . If Liberty continue to state that the contractor's actions are subsidence then show them Clause A10 and ask them to explain why this causation of damage is separate from subsidence.

Reply

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2023 3:38pm

dazza70

Original Poster

Posts: 144

46 helpful points

Location: Calp / Calpe

Joined: 13 Jul 2021

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2023 3:38pm

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.

Hi thank you. Have you got an email address? I would be so grateful

Thanks

Gill