Does 'Storm' include snow damage?

foggytown

huckster wrote: »

I think we should leave the thread to be about whether snow damage is covered. Posts that are off topic, won't help anyone reading the post at a later date.

It used to be that damage caused by "weight of ice or snow" was an insured peril in even basic policies. Now?

dzug1

mikey72 wrote: »

I thought that was in the job description of everyone there.

I am sure the official description is to confirm claims are valid.

foggytown

dzug1 wrote: »

I am sure the official description is to confirm claims are valid.

I have no doubt that's the "official" description!

gordikin

fazer1000 wrote: »

thats a nasty cough you have but that is her job and that is what she does

NU...who are they? Aviva by any chance? Your info. is out of date!

yourwrong

Selden wrote: »

Just in case you decide to make a claim, take photographs now to demonstrate the depth of the snow and any drifting.

There is a Scottish case which provides some authority that snow with significant wind may amount to storm - Glasgow Training Group (Motor Trade) Ltd. v Lombard Continental plc 1989 S.L.T. 375; 1989 S.C. 30. Here is Lord Clyde:

If the expression “storm” was ambiguous and doubtful then on the principle of construing the policy contra proferentem I would prefer a construction which included a heavy fall of snow but I find sufficient support for such a conclusion in the ordinary use of the word as reflected in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary.The question which I have to answer is whether or not a person of ordinary common sense making the ordinary use of language who was in or around Somerville Drive at the period in question would have used the word “storm” to describe the weather prevailing in that area. The question is one of fact and circumstance. Taking account of all the circumstances, including particularly the duration and intensity of the fall of snow and the existence of some significant wind, I consider that the weather conditions would properly be described as storm conditions. There was here not only a significant falling of snow over a relatively short period, but a degree of turbulence.

The impact of snow falling from the sky would not constitute as storm damage it would be the significant winds that would cause the damage. Or the weight of the snow sliding off the roof.

Think of it this way, if you sat on your roof and slid off would you expect that to be storm damage or AD? Clearly AD damage, although i know snow is different the act of sliding off is not.

chambta

I called Churchill and without discussing my policy specifically (don't want the incident recorded yet) they confirm I am covered.

yourwrong

Selden wrote: »

No, I am afraid again this is simply wrong. In Glasgow Training Group (Motor Trade) Ltd. v Lombard Continental plc 1989 the wind did NOT cause the damage. As significant winds had been present, Lord Clyde didn't need to decide whether wind was an essential element of storm. However, his view (albeit obiter dictum) was clearly that it is not - in fact both sides referred to the primary definition from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary:

a violent disturbance of the atmosphere, manifested by high winds, often accompanied by heavy falls of rain, hail or snow, by thunder and lightning, and at sea by turbulence of the waves. Hence sometimes applied to a heavy fall of rain, hail, or snow, or to a violent outbreak of thunder and lightning, unaccompanied by strong wind.

A property that has been well maintained, would not be damaged by water falling from the sky, snow falling from the sky (hail arguable could if big enough).

So if the direct touch of something that weights next to nothing, can damage a property on impact then you clearly have some maintance/wear and tear issues which again wouldnt be covered.

It is clear that a consiquence of peoples in ability to clear roofs, carports, conservatorys mostly down to the "i have insurance attitude or i cant be bothered to clear the snow" causes the damage.

Also the build up snow is again a gradual cause that you can see happening and are able to prevent. Gradual cause being another exclusion under most policys.

The view insurance companys are taking at the moment.

Do they

1 pay out on all the weight of snow claims under "storm" loosing millions of pounds on the short term but then put eveyones premiums up as a result of this.

or

2 do they Refuse to pay out to people who have not bothered to care about their policy and have based their decision on price rather then cover; and only consider it under the AD extension. Saving the company money, saving their customer's premiums, but equally loosing a few other of their customers.

Its just unfortunate that insurance companys can't exclude "Stupidity" :rotfl:

huckster

No point arguing this.

As always it will be 'each case on its own merits'. Some will be a maintenance issue so not covered and some could be considered to be storm damage. Most will be maintenance issues and I would expect genuine storm damage claims would be limited.

The problem for Insurers has always been policyholders expecting them to pay for every type of damage that is caused to their properties, because they think they are entitled. There is then a problem establishing the cause. The local builder or roofer has been known to be persuaded by the homeowner to note any quote, with the cause 'storm damage'. The Insurers cannot arrange to send an assessor out for every claim, so some get paid out, when probably they shouldn't. Other claims that are subject to assessment or the first telephone notification of loss is handled by someone experienced, will often not succeed.

I would not expect a home owner to risk their safety to put a ladder up in snowy/icy condition to clear snow from a roof they can only access by ladder. Look what happened to Rod Hull when he tried to fix his TV aerial. An Emu lost their TV career folllowing that unfortunate event.

The_Broker_2

Chances are it might be covered under storm damage (which as stated is a violent disturbance of the atmosphere).

Put it this way though, if you have accidental damage cover its likely yoru claim will be dealt with, with no problems

confuseddad_2

Just spoke to my insurer an they say i am not covered unless it is deemed that it was the wind that caused the damage to the guttering and not the snow.

They suggest that they send an assessor around and if it is not the case then they will class it as a claim against my policy for the cost of the surveyor regardless of his findings.

They say that if i have accidental damage then i would be able to claim. But that is not my understanding of accidental damage i never accidently got up there and knocked the things off.

I thought that accidental damage was stuff like tipping paint cans over and knocking ornaments of shelfs etc etc.

Surely it was a result of the "snow storm" that my gutters are know in the garden.

Legalised robbery. Never claimed before and know when i need a little help. Id fix it at my own expense but i have a conservatory that spans the rear of the house and i cant get up to the gutter at the rear of the house.