Call me a thief, call me an extorsionist, call me a day light robber I don't care as

PhatDad

I'm an insurance company. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Just a little rant to get off my chest but hopefully it's a warning to you all too.

Monday evening we had quite a bad leak from the bathroom. Luckily I was in the house at the time so did a number of things.

Firstly upon noticing the leak coming through the ceiling and into the kitchen directly over the boiler AND tumble dryer and several electricity sockets I ran to the power board and switched off all the power.

I then dragged the tumble dryer out from underneath the water falling on it and the boiler.

Then to minimise the damage I grabbed a large bowl and stepped onto the dryer to place the bowl ontop of the boiler and underneath the leak. It didn't do much good as there was loads of water by this time.

While I was doing this the wife and her immense strength that I can only put down to that 'MY BABY IS INSIDE!!!' type emotional, my house is getting in a mess, superpower women have sometimes -- Usually when a jar needs opening and i've spent hours 'loosening' the lid -- has dragged the washing machine out and turned the water off with the stopcock.

I then go and check the damage in the bathroom and see where the leak has come from. I was unable to stop the leak due to the joint connecting the bath hot water tap cracking.

Anyway we get it all sorted and a plumber caps the pipe off.

I phoned the insurance company who get a local firm out to place fans in the house and dry the place. Oh as well as rip up the brand new laminate flooring in both rooms, stripping loads of wallpaper off the ceiling and walls too. I also mentioned that while trying to minimise the damage my weight put a big dint in the top of the dryer which helped make the front control panel come off.

Today i receive the claim form from the insurance company and there is no mention of the dryer so I called them up to inform them. I was told by them that the dryer would be a second claim for accidental damage and not part of the claim for the leakage. For this I would have to pay another excess.

I was gobsmacked and told them so. I spoke to the manager and expressed my opinion and then she hits me with a bombshell that we're not actually covered for accidental damage so we won't be able to claim for the tumble dryer at all.

I asked her that if the washing machine had been broken when it was dragged out to switch the water off and therefore prevent anymore damage would I have been covered then? That was a negative too.

I said to her 'So what you are telling me is that if for instance I was to discover a small fire in my home then instead of dealing with it by throwing water over it or using a fire extinguisher and risking some form of accidental damage which I would have to pay a seperate excess fee over. I should just collect the family, take them outside and then wait until the house has burnt down before calling the fire service and insurance. Instead of them having to shell out a few hundred quid they'd have to shell out a few thousand or hundred thousand depending on the speed of the fireservice but I'd get the service I'd paid for over the years.'

Suprisingly she had no answer for this.

So as a result I have learnt my lesson that when a company says they will transfer my insurance that I have to double check to make sure they have included the accidental damage that we did have originally and that if I ever get a serious problem I should let it esculate to it's climax to prevent the risk of having to pay more than I should.

So be warned, don't believe a transfer will be exact and that any measures you take to minimise damage could infact cost you more money. Oh yeah, and that all insurers are scumbags.

cattie

You should always check your insurance & never assume if you "transfer" that the cover is the same. With household & buildings insurance there is no such thing as transfering a policy, a new policy is created for each application & accidental damage is normally an optional extra. It is the customers responsibilty to ensure they have adequate cover.

Although it's not what you want to hear, the damage to the tumble dryer wasn't caused by the leak but accidentally by you when you stood on it, so the insurance company logically wouldn't pay out for this.

I hope you get the rest of the claim sorted out ok anyway.

shellsuit

cattie wrote:

You should always check your insurance & never assume if you "transfer" that the cover is the same. With household & buildings insurance there is no such thing as transfering a policy, a new policy is created for each application & accidental damage is normally an optional extra. It is the customers responsibilty to ensure they have adequate cover.

Although it's not what you want to hear, the damage to the tumble dryer wasn't caused by the leak but accidentally by you when you stood on it, so the insurance company logically wouldn't pay out for this.

I hope you get the rest of the claim sorted out ok anyway.

Have to agree with that I'm afraid.

I've transferred/changed insurance policies too and have ALWAYS rang to confirm whether I have accidental damage on it. Don't just assume, look at the paperwork AND ring to check and confirm - if only for peace of mind. Better than something happening like it has now then finding out you're not covered.

Astaroth

Ok, have to disagree that all insurers are scumbags

What the arguement here is revolving around is the promimate cause of the damage to your appliance. Ie was the "true" cause of damage accidental or was it an escape of water - one of which is covered and the other isnt in your case.

This is a very complicate area of law and does very much come down to opinion rather than a set of rules. There is certainly some arguement that the actual reason the appliance was damaged was because of the leak.... if there hadnt been a leak then you would have had no reason to pull out the machine and stand on it - ie there is a direct causal chain from the insured peril to the resultant damage. You have forfilled your duty as the insured by attempting to mitigate your losses. The only question that could be asked is was it reasonable for you to have actually stand on a dryer rather than stay a chair or stool - the natural come back to this is the fact that in the state of panic it did seem reasonable that a large metal appliance would be suitable to use as a step.

The other arguement that they may bring up if they do conceed that the proximate cause of the damage was the leak is that the damage is a result of a deliberate act on your behalf and therefore excluded. This one is an easy one to argue by quoting Patrick -v- Royal London (Court of Appeal 30/3/06) which basically ruled that it is the intention to cause damage that must be deliberate and not just a deliberate act that happened to cause damage.

I think that you have a reasonable arguement (but not the strongest I have ever heard) and would suggest that you put your complaint in writting to them

dunstonh

To be fair to the insurance company, they have done nothing wrong. They have dealt with the claim within the areas you were covered.

You could possibly blame the broker who arranged the policy for you as it is the responsibility of the broker to ensure you are aware of the key things you are and are not covered for. Especially where a company switch is involved. If you didnt use a broker/adviser then you take on that responsibility and if you dont do the checking then you only have yoursef to blame I'm afraid. Its a consequence of going execution only (DIY).

At least tumble dryers are cheap to buy and a repair is probably less than the excess you would have paid anyway.

London_Girl_3

Until I started working in the insurance industry, i wasn't aware of how much isn't covered. Most of our client's customers don't either until they put in a claim.
The only thing i can think of goes back to when you were sold the policy. Were you told it was identical to the one you had then? Most schemes record their calls and you might be able to get the tape pulled and listened to. If this was said on the tape then you could try and go for having been mis-sold a policy.


BTW When buying building's insurance i would always (now) recommend ensuring Accidental Damage, Matching Items and Trace and Access Cover were part of the policy - all friends and family are regularly reminded of this when their policy comes up for renewal.

Good luck

dunstonh

There was a stat published some years back that 83% of all claims fall under accidental damage. I dont know how upto date that is now but it does show the risk of not including it on the policy.

gingerdad

Astaroth wrote:

Ok, have to disagree that all insurers are scumbags

What the arguement here is revolving around is the promimate cause of the damage to your appliance. Ie was the "true" cause of damage accidental or was it an escape of water - one of which is covered and the other isnt in your case.

This is a very complicate area of law and does very much come down to opinion rather than a set of rules. There is certainly some arguement that the actual reason the appliance was damaged was because of the leak.... if there hadnt been a leak then you would have had no reason to pull out the machine and stand on it - ie there is a direct causal chain from the insured peril to the resultant damage. You have forfilled your duty as the insured by attempting to mitigate your losses. The only question that could be asked is was it reasonable for you to have actually stand on a dryer rather than stay a chair or stool - the natural come back to this is the fact that in the state of panic it did seem reasonable that a large metal appliance would be suitable to use as a step.

The other arguement that they may bring up if they do conceed that the proximate cause of the damage was the leak is that the damage is a result of a deliberate act on your behalf and therefore excluded. This one is an easy one to argue by quoting Patrick -v- Royal London (Court of Appeal 30/3/06) which basically ruled that it is the intention to cause damage that must be deliberate and not just a deliberate act that happened to cause damage.

I think that you have a reasonable arguement (but not the strongest I have ever heard) and would suggest that you put your complaint in writting to them

I have to disagree, all insurers are scum bags and robbers, we have two non fault claims going through and we are still out of pocket on both, because of crap insurance companies and crap claims departments and crap legal teams. all who can't find out the uk broker of a spanish insurance company. it took me ten minutes and two phone calls, they still haven't found out 12 months later.

Astaroth

I didnt say that all insurers are good.... ultimately an insurance company is only as good as the people they employ, people want cut price insurance, insurers cannot afford to only employ fully qualified claims managers who in the commercial lines arena can earn over £100,000.

Foreign claims are a pain to deal with because you do have to find the UK handling agent for the foreign insurer. This is heavily the fault of the legislation revolving around the motor insurers beauraux and its equivilants in other countries. UK insurer has to write to the MIB (by snail mail) with all the details of the third party. MIB writes to its equiv in the other country. They write to the insurer/ 3rd party etc depending on how much info they have. They then write back to the foreign MIB. They then write back to the UK MIB and they then write back to the UK Insurer. Needless to say a massive amount of letter writting and posting takes significant amounts of time and thats before you take into account letters lost in the post, companies having backlogs etc. Why there cannot be a central database of all insurance companies and their representatives in other countries which legally has to be maintained and accurate who knows.

Of cause it then gets even better as even though you then have the UK agent 99% of them have next to no authority and no access to their clients records so it results in lots more international mail as the offer you give them (say in a case of split liability) then has to be relayed abroad and then back again and on again to you before you hear if its been accepted or not (and dont get me started on getting cheques from them)

PhatDad

I'm actually unaware of whether the tumble dryer wasn't damaged due to the water going in it, especially after the large dint appeared, and really don't wish to plug it in to find out. Especially when you consider there are wires showing from the front control panel that's hanging off. I am no more an electrician than a plumber so I am unaware if it is safe. Luckily the dishwasher was safely tucked away under the worksurface but the dryer took the full brunt of the water and my size 12's.

As the most visible damage was from me standing on it I used that for the claim. Considering the company treated me like a criminal and not the victim I was after my last claim I dont' really fancy calling them and telling them it could possibly be broken from the water.

I will admit to panicking during the leak but I was well aware of the other nearest items that I could have chosen to stand on which were two chrome stools with upholstered seats, but as they were still dry, didn't have dirty wet footprints on them already I chose the tumble dryer which was already in a position to stand on as well as very wet and possibly damaged as it was due to teh water.

I'm not that bothered about the lack of accidental damage as it is my responsibility and an error I can blame on the wife anyway. I'm not really that bothered about paying for a new dryer, I am annoyed at the way the tumble dryer is not grouped with the rest of the claim even though the damage was caused because of the leak. The same way I would have been charged another excess if the washing machine had broken when we had to drag that out to get to the stop tap.

I just know that next time it happens i'll call the insurers first and wait for them to get a plumber out to sort the continuing damage out.

johnofhertford

dunstonh wrote:

There was a stat published some years back that 83% of all claims fall under accidental damage. I dont know how upto date that is now but it does show the risk of not including it on the policy.

76% of statistics are made up on the spot!