Definition of malicious damage

dacouch

In theory you are correct, in reality they are a nightmare as the Insurers have to chose a Builder who has nationwide coverage. This often means the builders they send come from the other end of the country or they subcontract it out.

Have a look at this thread to see Asprea who are Norwich Unions approved builder

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1502145

In general its much better to use a good local builder who you know is reliable as they will normally do a far better job.

peredur_2

dacouch wrote: »

I agree with Geri, its a fire.

They have someone who has admitted starting the fire who is no doubt being taken to court for arson not malicious damage.

I'm surprised Zurich are being like this, if this is what is actually happening and the circumstances are as they have been posted it might be worth biting the bullet and either getting a solicitor onto the case or spending money on an Insurance Assessor.(I'm not keen on them, but in this type of case I bet they would get a result within a week or so).

Can you post more details please OP

The bloke who set the fire was a tennant who has admitted setting the fire. When he was picked up by the police he was so drunk that when asked if there was anyone else in the house he could only answer that he did not know. He is being charged with Arson with intent to endanger life. The insurance company have said that there is a clause which says that they will not pay up if there is malicious damage from a tennant. On the face of it the charge does suggest an element of malice (understatement!), however he is now going to plead guilty to arson but not arson with intent to endanger life. The insurance company have said that they will not come to a decision until they have spoken to the tennant. It is my guess that they will want to know the outcome of the court case before they come to any decision.

If there is any way of pushing this forward I would seriously consider it by now as we have had a quote form a local builder (using Zurich's surveyor's spec for the work needed) for the thick end of £45K.

Thanks all again for your input here.

If anyone needs help with Double Basses/Bass guitars then feel free to ask as that is something I could help with in return

missile

Wow - Oh the joys of being a private landlord. That will put a severe dent in your rental returns for this year.

Kittian_the_Blue

Peredur
The handler at Zurich has got the cover wrong - they are treating the loss as Malicious Damage not Fire as it should be (it should be treated as an Arson under the Fire peril). I recommend you call them and ask why it isn't being treated as a Fire peril (with no exclusions) and if they won't see sense ask to speak to the Property claims manager.
Post back here how you get on and we'll be able to provide more advice. Remind them that the delays they are causing will increase the valid loss of rent claim.

dacouch

Good advice Kittian, make sure you take the full names of the people you speak to, I would be inclined to follow it up with a letter outlining this all and that if you do not receive a satisfactory response you will be speaking to the Finanicial Services Authority (It may be worth "cc" the letter to the FSA at the same time)

peredur_2

I hope to speak to the loss adjuster tomorrow and will report back.

As usual, thanks.

peredur_2

For those of you following this tedious affair :-

Mr Andrew Briggs - Customer Relations Executive from Zurich has written back to us following a formal complaint from our solicitors to tell us

"I appreciate you would like to claim for the damage under the fire section of your policy, however, the fire was started deliberately by one of your tennants.

Damage caused by tenants isn't covered by your policy and this is confirmed in the Endorsement which states 'There is no cover for event 3 (malicious damage) under the Buildings and Contents sections'

Our solicitor is now issueing proceedings and getting a barristers opinion.

Any other ideas?

What a drag.

mattymoo

If you are that far down the road (and I don't blame you), all other ideas are out the window really. Leave it to your solicitors now.

From my point of view, I can understand why the insurers exclude Mal Damage cover by tenants. Usually when a tenant is evicted, they do some damage to the property in revenge. It is a contractual dispute between the landlord and tenant and not something the insurance would cover.

However, I felt your case was certainly a fire and the policy should have triggered. If you have a property portfolio with Zurich it would be worth looking to move it elsewhere after speaking to a broker.

Dangermac

peredur wrote: »

For those of you following this tedious affair :-

Mr Andrew Briggs - Customer Relations Executive from Zurich has written back to us following a formal complaint from our solicitors to tell us

"I appreciate you would like to claim for the damage under the fire section of your policy, however, the fire was started deliberately by one of your tennants.

Damage caused by tenants isn't covered by your policy and this is confirmed in the Endorsement which states 'There is no cover for event 3 (malicious damage) under the Buildings and Contents sections'

Our solicitor is now issueing proceedings and getting a barristers opinion.

Any other ideas?

What a drag.

There are a few key points here:

1. As per an earlier response, this claim should be treated as a Fire claim, not a Malicious Damage claim. I presume that there were flames, therefore, the legal definition of a fire was present.

2. There is a fundamental insurance difference between something 'not being covered', and something being excluded. It would sound like the policy does not cover malicious damage, which I think is fairly standard for most landlords' buildings policies, however, malicious damage should not be excluded. Therefore, if the claim is being made as a result of fire, the fire 'event' (probably event 1 on your policy) should not exclude malicious damage.

To illustrate this point, a Third Party Fire & Theft car policy does not provide cover for Malicious Damage (vandalism). However, Malicious Damage is not excluded. Therefore, if a fire started as a result of vandalism, all things being equal, the claim should be covered.


I would recommend that you pass these points to your solicitor. It sounds like the insurer are barking up the wrong tree.

Hope this helps

DM

Kittian_the_Blue

Peredur
I'm sure your solicitor will be aware, but Arson is defined under the Criminal damages Act 1971 section 1(3) "destruction or damage caused by fire shall be charged as arson" - clearly the case here.
common law also defines it as "malicious burning of the dwelling of another"
I cannot see how Zurich can deny the claim - I've dealt with many fires started by tenants and the claims have always been accepted under the fire peril (including claims for Zurich...)