question re. recent Whirlpool tumble dryer fires & insurance

It's too hard to say.

It could be because they knew there was an issue with the Whirlpool appliance and they left it unattended and on (why you'd do that with one of the known dodgy appliances I really don't know!).

It would really depend on their policy. Who it is with, what the exclusions are etc. It's likely they had a cheap policy which comes with more exclusions.

I assume this may be it.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/dad-blames-faulty-dryer-for-blaze-that-killed-pet-dog-and-gutted-leigh-park-home-1-7170322

It's unlikely that a home insurance policy would have a clause that said that electrical devices had to be switched off while the house was unattended - I've certainly never had a policy that said that. And if there was such a clause then it would have to be very clearly highlighted to the customer at the time of purchase, as it would be an unusual and significant exclusion.

Without such a specific clause the insurer would have to rely on the general clause which says (something like) "you must take reasonable care of your home and possessions at all times". However the courts and the ombudsman don't like insurers using such vaguely worded clauses to avoid paying claims, and so the level of stupidity that's required before they can be invoked is pretty high. IIRC the test applied is recklessness as opposed to mere carelessness - in other words the insurer would have to prove that you knew (or must have known) that what you were doing was dangerous, but that you went ahead and did it in spite of the obvious risks.

Simply leaving an appliance on while you go out isn't reckless - loads of people do it every day with no ill effects. OTOH if the tumble drier was clearly smoking, or sparking, or it had caught fire the previous week, then leaving it going in the hope that the problem would just go away would be pretty reckless - and arguably the insurer would be justified in refusing to pay for the resulting fire.

I suppose if there's a known issue with a specific type of tumble drier and the manufacturer has advised customers not to leave them unattended then an insurer *might* feel justified in rejecting a claim if you'd ignored the manufacturers advice. But I'm not sure I'm convinced - I imagine that most consumers would assume that if there was a serious risk of fire then the manufacturer would be recalling all the tumble driers immediately, and the fact that they're not acting with any great urgency would suggest that the risk is actually rather remote and theoretical. Certainly if my insurer refused a claim on those grounds I'd be complaining to the ombudsman - obviously I hope never to be in a situation to find out whether I'd win or not.

Millions of owners of potentially lethal tumble dryers have been warned not to use them until the machines have been repaired.

Tumble dryers sold under the Hotpoint, Creda and Indesit brands have been behind a series of fires.

Whirlpool, which owns the brands, had said they were all right to use, providing someone was in attendance.

But following advice from Trading Standards, the new guidance is not to use them until they are repaired.

BBC News

Whirlpool - Safety Notice