Worried about wording in Churchill home insurance policy

getting_worried

Page 6 of my home insurance policy booklet with churchill, which deals with buildings cover states:

What you are insured against

6: Subsidence, heave or landslip of the site your home stands on.
But not:
...... loss or damage caused by faulty materials, workmanship or design.....

I can't find any such similar wording in my previous policy with another insurer.

So, I rang churchill and got a customer sales rep, who passed me on to a team leader, who said she didn't know the answer to my question which was:

"I bought the house after a survey, which showed no problems. Let's say a brick at the bottom of a structural wall fails for some reason and the wall collapses, taking the house with it - would the insurance cover this?"

She said she would need to ask the claims team on Monday.

This left me nervous. If you extrapolate the wording in the policy, it reads to me as though this could be a get-out clause for pretty much any sort of failing.

Roof tile fails, loft fills with water = faulty materials, workmanship, or design?
Felt on flat roof fails = faulty materials, workmanship, or design?
What if some electrics within the walls of your house shorted somehow and burned your house down?
Or a pipe burst and your house flooded?

Etc...

The contents cover then states, on page 10:

What is not insured:
loss or damage caused by faulty workmanship or materials.

Does this mean a failed flat roof and a resultant leak into the lounge, wrecking sofa, carpets, ceiling, etc results in the rejection of any claim for resultant damage from the failing?

I then phoned another large insurer, which said: "We cover this peril. Afterall, how would you know that something within the walls was faulty? You buy the house in good faith, you expect cover."

Sadly, they then went on to reject my attempt to switch my insurance to them because my house is up for sale and they "don't insure houses which are on sale." :eek:

So, is churchill's wording more restrictive than others?

I'm nervous about something going wrong through no fault of my own and being told there's no cover.

Thanks.

huckster

All policies to my knowledge will exclude loss or damage caused by faulty materials, workmanship or design.

This exclusion will appear somewhere within the policy.

What it is basically saying is that if a house is damaged as a direct result of faulty materials, workmanship or design is that they won't be obliged to cover this event. But they would cover liability to a third party under the liability section. So if a neighbour or passer by is injured or their property damaged, you would have cover for liability. It is possible that your Insurers would cover consequential damaged you suffered, if you had the accidental damage cover. So in your example, the Insurers might exclude the wall which was damaged as a result of the failure of the brick, but they should cover any other consequential damage to your property.

If a roof tile is faulty or there is faulty workmanship, the roof area affected would not be covered, but if you have accidental damage, the Insurers should cover the consequential damage.

If the house caught fire due to a wiring fault, you would be covered for fire, as the cause of the damage is fire. The Insurers could opt not to pay for the electrical part that caused the fire, because faulty parts are not covered.

Many many years ago, I dealt with a case where the policyholder had done some building work for themselves. This later failed and part of the house collapsed. I know at the time the Insurers refused the bulk of the claim due to faulty workmanship and this headed for litigation. This took many years to resolve and I did not see the outcome, as it was in the hands of lawyers and senior executives of the Insurance company.

I would say the chances of one part of a property failing causing a total or even a partial collapse is extremely unlikely. Insurers can only be expected to cover perils for which it would be reasonable for them to cover. I think it would be unreasonable to expect them to cover events which are either down to faulty material or workmanship or failure to maintain a property.

Tygermoth

^^ what he said

Faulty workmanship is excluded under all policies I deal with (40+ of them)

As the above poster stated the faulty workmanship would not be covered but any damage would (if the cover applied)

-Roof tile fails, loft fills with water = faulty materials, workmanship, or design? - The tile would not be covered or works to repair but if water got in and damaged your property that would be.

- Felt on flat roof fails = faulty materials, workmanship, or design? Felt on a flat roof will fail unless maintained, so once again internal damage would be covered but the repair or maintenance of the roof would not.

What if some electrics within the walls of your house shorted somehow and burned your house down?
Or a pipe burst and your house flooded? - In both the repair would not be covered but resultant damage would.

Hope that helps...

adamc260

Just checked my dads policy with LV and his says:

GENERAL EXCLUSIONS
We will not pay for:

Any claim arising from:
faulty design, materials or workmanship;

Seems it is standard then

getting_worried

Many thanks to both of you. That helps massively.

Basically, I'd need to ensure the policy covers consequential damage from the failure of some component - which would suggest going with some form of accidental damage cover is almost a pre-requisite.

huckster, in your example, would it be correct to assume the unfortunate policyholder did not obtain a structural engineer's report indicating his alteration was ok?
And if he had done so, he would have had a claim against the engineer?

I'm just a bit wary of the extent of all policies generally given that years ago a business premises I rented flooded due to heavy rains and a blocked drain (tree roots holding onto sanitary waste) and my contents insurer refused to pay out for consequential damage, claiming the dictionary definition of flooding was "coastal". The premises was 50-odd miles inland.

To make matters worse, my landlord then refused to claim on the buildings insurance to repair the drain (I paid the premium to him, he held the policy and therefore I couldn't make a claim directly) after the insurer confirmed damage from tree roots was an insured peril - putting me at further risk from flooding.

many thanks to both of you for taking the time to reply - I'll make a quick phone call to the insurer now to confirm the extent of the pre-existing accidental damage cover I have.

getting_worried

Thanks adam. That is helpful.

huckster

getting_worried wrote: »

huckster, in your example, would it be correct to assume the unfortunate policyholder did not obtain a structural engineer's report indicating his alteration was ok?
And if he had done so, he would have had a claim against the engineer?

Yes the policyholder did not obtain any form of professional advice. They were complete amateurs and this showed in the work completed.

You would be correct that there would be some form of litigation that would be possible, had the policyholder employed professional services. But complicated, prolonged and possibly expensive.

Be aware that you have to be living in the property for Insurers to offer the extended accidental damage cover.