Loss adjuster denying payout for collapsed chimney

buuuug

Hi,

In October high winds blew my chimney and aeriel down, various builder quotes has the chimney being taken down and rebuilt. The insurance apparently payout automatically on quotes under £1000 but as mine were between £1600 to £2000 (mental prices!!) they decided to appoint a loss adjuster.

Loss adjuster has now been and declared that i had neglected maintenance and my policy does not include weathering so they will not pay for the repair.

Where can i go from here?I dont see other people climbing up every once in a while to check their chimney and i had no problems with it beforehand, it just stayed up there like other bricks do. Literally strong winds must have pulled my aeriel and chimney over.

I feel the LA is just avoiding paying for something and that his view is an unneccesary demand, he could have said this whatever the state of the Chimney with me having so obvious way to appeal against his judgement.

Any suggestions will be great thank you.

Regards

Natalie

cogito

If the chimney had been neglected i.e. not checked for defects, missing pointing and so on, it's possible that this could be why it blew down. Have you asked the loss adjuster to justify his statement or have you asked the builders who have quoted for the work for their opinion?

If you didn't know before about the importance of maintaining a chimney, you do now.

buuuug

Hi,

None of the 4 builders have suggested that they felt the chimney was in a bad state and in May I had the new aeriel installed, i would have thought that if the chimney (which is very clearly visible from my rear roof garden) were in a obvious bad state that either the aeriel men or builders would have said something.

Does make me bitter to insurance companies that they try such things. I had a new front door and rear wall over the summer, not really neglectful actions.

I will challenge the LA, his letter stated weathering not being covered but thats such vague wordplay that it says "No, not us" but leaves sufficient ambiguity if required.

Was unsure how finite their role in this claim is as they write as if its Absolute.

Nat.

FSexpert

buuuug wrote: »

Hi,

None of the 4 builders have suggested that they felt the chimney was in a bad state and in May I had the new aeriel installed, i would have thought that if the chimney (which is very clearly visible from my rear roof garden) were in a obvious bad state that either the aeriel men or builders would have said something.

Does make me bitter to insurance companies that they try such things. I had a new front door and rear wall over the summer, not really neglectful actions.

I will challenge the LA, his letter stated weathering not being covered but thats such vague wordplay that it says "No, not us" but leaves sufficient ambiguity if required.

Was unsure how finite their role in this claim is as they write as if its Absolute.

Nat.

I would recomend that you appoint a structural engineer as this is the only way the LA will back down.

buuuug

Mmm, i guess then i threaten the insurers with the bill for the structural guys time tooand speed up resolution? I have no money at present, trying to negotiate full and finals with credit cards as it is, all one big head ache. Scare something else will fall down and cause damage elsewhere until they get this sorted,

Nat

FlameCloud

Costs in proving your claim are down to yourself, not the insurance company, especially if they have already paid money on a loss adjuster. With respect though, builders are not the most qualified people to ask as they tend to just say whatever you want to hear.

The aerial on the chimney doesnt help either- the constant movment of it will eventually cause fractures in the brickwork. The worst case I have seen of this is it causing an entire outer leaf of brickwork to fail on one side of the building.

mattymoo

Flamecloud - are you sure about the first para.

Costs of proving the value of a claim are down to a policyholder, e.g. producing receipts, documentary evidence, accounts (commercial stuff) and similar.

The costs of refuting a loss adjusters declinature would be met if the structural engineer sides with the policyholder. Of course, if the engineer agrees with the loss adjuster, it will be wasted money.

FlameCloud

I think so, yeah. Its the way I was taught and how I deal with it now. Almost all the policies I deal with have an exclusion saying about costs to present a claim, so you can fall back on that, but normally if the policy holder is being nice and entering into an adult discussion with you (i.e. not swearing and shouting) then I would normally pay them the money for it if it differes from my opinion and is right.

Insco

If you are able to prove storm conditions on the date that the chimney fell down the onus actually shifts to the Insurer to prove " weathering" - if that is what they are trying to tell you the cause of the damage actually is ( if you have discharged the burden of proof the onus shifts to the Insurer to prove any exclusions that they feel that they can rely upon to defeat your claim.


Invoke a formal complaint with your Insurers ( follow the formal complaint procedure outlined in your policy wording) and if they have not resolved it for you after 8 weeks you can ask the FOS to consider.

If you have had four quotes from builders and the aerial fitted in May it seems reasonable to assume that the chimney was in a reasonable state if no one mentioned to you it was not.

FSexpert

the cosf of any reports will be down to you however if the report is accepted (which it would be if they are reputable and not just a hyped up builder) and it shows the insurers have made a bad decision then you will be reimbursed. I regret but I don't see any insurer accepting your claim without such a report.