Leaking pipe/connector

Hoonercat

I've recently had a leak under my house (timber floor) which was caused by a lead lock between 2 pipes (lead pipe goes under the concrete part of the house). I realize that the insurance won't cover the actual repair to the pipework but I'm a bit concerned as to the phrasing when they say 'leaking pipes' as it was the connector that failed rather than a pipe leak. Am I just worrying over nothing or will this potentially cause problems claiming? Will I still be covered if the connector failed due to wear/age? I can't see how they could possibly expect a homeowner to do regular checks on pipework that is under the house but am still a bit concerned that they may see it as a way out of paying for the damage.

gregd_3

This is still covered as an escape of water from the heating installation. The policy will not say it covers you for burst pipes it will say you are covered for escape of water from a plumbing or heating installation.

Doesn't matter if its wear and tear that is the cause, an insurance covers you for the resultant damage regardless of why the pipe fails in the first place.

Hoonercat

Thanks Greg, that puts my mind a rest a little. Having read the policy, it says exclusions include damage caused by rust and corrosion (in the case of water escape). Does this mean that is a pipe/connector corrodes then the insurance co will not pay for any damage resulting from escape of water? I don't actually know why the connector leaked as I had to ask a friend to wait in for the plumber.

gregd_3

That means that if they would not pay you to replace the pipe if it rusts or corrodes but would still pay you for the resultant water damage.

But say for example you put a nail through a pipe or it burst due to frost or excess pressure etc they would also pay you for the pipe as well as all of the water damage.

Hoonercat

Thanks again Greg:T

Hoonercat

gregd wrote: »

That means that if they would not pay you to replace the pipe if it rusts or corrodes but would still pay you for the resultant water damage.

But say for example you put a nail through a pipe or it burst due to frost or excess pressure etc they would also pay you for the pipe as well as all of the water damage.

Greg, sorry to ask again, but when I initially phoned the insurers about the leak I was told that I would have to pay for the plumber (they didn't ask if it was accidental damage, it seemed like a blanket rule). The policy says that they will not pay for the replacement costs, so why would they need to add the part about rust and corrosion?

gregd_3

Are you sure your policy specifically says will not pay for any plumbing?? I don't think it will. It should say it will pay you for frost or damage due to increased water pressure and they need to put the bit about rust etc so that they are telling you what you are not covered for.

Hoonercat

Hi Greg, can't check my policy at the moment as I'm at work but I was told by an advisor that I would have to meet the cost of repair, he didn't suggest that the cost should only be met under certain circumstances. I will check the policy this evening.

gregd_3

Probably they did not mention this because you've not put a nail through a pipe, its just suddenly started leaking and also there has not been any freezing conditions to cause them to burst due to frost.