Tesco Home insurance refused flood claim.

FlameCloud

pampam wrote: »

Was a claim made for flooding to THAT PROPERTY immediately after the 2007 floods? No

If there WAS, then there may be a valid claim to pursue - eg if the house had not been dried out properly or the under-floor area was left full of flood water and not emptied/dried out for example.

If there was NO claim made immediately after the floods - implying that the house was not flooded - then there is probably no claim to pursue.

The properties who have (allegedly) successfully made subsequent 'dampness' claims may have made flooding claims originally. No this is not the case in Hull. Many homes did not actually have water coming in to the property but the outside flooding came past the airbricks. Lots of people in the area have made successful "secondary flooding claims.

Is the current insurer the same one who covered the property at the time of the 2007 flood? Yes

Does the property have a DPC and DPM? Yes

What is the age of the property and type of construction? (Brick-cavity-block, brick-cavity-brick, solid brick walls, stone, brick-cavity-timber frame, concrete walls, prefab etc) Approx 75 years brick walls not sure of inner constriction

If you google 'secondary flooding', you will notice that TESCO INSURANCE seem to be the main insurer who is refusing to pay out on these claims....often using mis-declaration to void the insurance - eg, failing to declare a previous claim for £250 of clothes stolen off a washing line 4 years ago etc

Voiding insurance at the point of claim for previous non-declaration should NOT be allowed. If the insurance companies are capable of determining your claims history when you make a claim, they are EQUALLY capable of determining this information when you apply for a policy.

..............................................................................
Thanks for your help

I would really suggest you comission your own survey report of the property, and present this too them. From here we cannot possibly say if the insurers are right or not, so you would probably have to pay for it. I would imagine though that the area around Hull is saturated, so it wouldnt suprise me if the water table has risen. If this is the case, you could still argue for the claim (quoting relevent proximate cause law) but you'd need an assessor well versed in insurance law. There are several of these people on the forum.

withabix

FlameCloud wrote: »

2. It costs money to search the database. 20 or so pence per go, depending on the insurer. Times by the amount of policies, this is a lot of money.

Gosh, a whole 20p per policy. :rolleyes:

withabix

FlameCloud wrote: »

4. And the biggy- a contract is drawn up in good faith between you and the insurer. Why on earth would they assume you are lieing when you agree to that contract?

.

Yes, that's the biggy.

And yet the first thing insurers do when you make a claim is ASSUME THAT YOU ARE LIEING :rolleyes:

Sadly, there is NO good faith on the part of the insurers. They just want your money.

No coincidence or lack of consistency there....


You clearly have no concept of the assessment of risk. You are supposed to assess risks BEFORE the event, not afterwards...

However, insurers don't WANT to assess the risks by checking people's claim history when the policies are taken out, because doing those checks would remove one of the opportunities to avoid paying out on a subsequent claim....thus reducing their profits!

FlameCloud

withabix wrote: »

Yes, that's the biggy.

And yet the first thing insurers do when you make a claim is ASSUME THAT YOU ARE LIEING :rolleyes:

Sadly, there is NO good faith on the part of the insurers. They just want your money.

No coincidence or lack of consistency there....


You clearly have no concept of the assessment of risk. You assess risks BEFORE the event, not afterwards...

However, insurers don't WANT to check people's claim history when the policies are taken out, because doing those checks would remove one of the opportunities to avoid paying out on a subsequent claim....thus reducing their profits!

Why? The vast majority of times I have seen a policy voided for non disclosure the policy holder gets all their money back. What profit would the insurer make then?

20p may not seem alot, but times it by the amount of names (one search per person at the address) and times by the number of addresses you can find it will add. Plus you then have the more expensive staff on top of it.

I do have a concept of risk, whereas you clearly have no concept of contract law.

FlameCloud

Insurers also do not assume you are lieing. They are under a legal obligation to treat customers fairly. They have to investigate claims because not doing so means people who dont claim get larger-than-they should premium increases, which isnt TCFing them.

gazza975526570

withabix wrote: »

And yet the first thing insurers do when you make a claim is ASSUME THAT YOU ARE LIEING :rolleyes:

No they dont. The first thing they do is take your policy number

withabix

FlameCloud wrote: »

the policy holder gets all their money back. What profit would the insurer make then?

Clearly, the profit protected is the difference between the claim and the premium.

The insurer has also quite obviously had the use of the customer's premium, which they will then have gambled in high risk investments and dubious investment vehicles and instruments...

Part of the immoral and broken financial industry.

raskazz

withabix wrote: »

Part of the immoral and broken financial industry.

No, what is immoral is that a lot of people do actually lie to reduce their premiums.

raskazz

withabix wrote: »

Tesco Insurance = Royal Bank of Scotland = BANKRUPT and 58% owned by the government....maybe there is a connection between them being a FAILED bank and their attempts to not pay out on claims...

Er, RBS Insurance group specifically are certainly not bankrupt. They made over £400 million profit last year. The insurance arm is certainly much better run than the banking arm.

raskazz

withabix wrote: »

However, insurers don't WANT to assess the risks by checking people's claim history when the policies are taken out, because doing those checks would remove one of the opportunities to avoid paying out on a subsequent claim....thus reducing their profits!

As FlameCloud pointed out, this is nonsense because where a policy is void due to non-disclosure or misrepresentation the insurer has to return the premium paid since the breach.

What would reduce profit is returning lots of premiums. What would increase profit is underwriting risks correctly, which is hard when people misrepresent the risk.