Can you claim on buildings insurance for

teame1

Can you claim on buildings insurance for events which occurred prior to buying the property?
My next door neighbour has used her insurance to legally force my friend next door but one to stop him from finishing some work and get other builders to make a repair to the ground next to her back extension.

The scenario was a burst pipe in my neighbours extension which caused flooding to my next door but ones back garden.
My next door but one neighbour had to set up a pumping scenario to clear the water from his back garden. Neither neighbour could work out what was the cause of the water and even the local council and thames water struggled to work out what was going on.

This ended up going on for a couple of months before the leak was discovered to be a significant water supply pipe under my neighbours extension.

The leak was sorted and my next door but one neighbour repaired the damage from the leak in his back garden.

Everything was OK till my neighbour sold the house and the neighbour from hell moved in.
Please note that the damage had been caused by a ruptured pipe inside my neighbours extension.

Well after a few months my new neighbour must have noticed an issue with her 2 story extension. She took my neighbour but one to court over it using her buildings insurance.

She tried to claim many thousands of pounds in damages and costs which was thrown out but my neighbour was still faced with a legal bill, even though he did most of the defence himself and only used a solicitor for the final courtcase, and a lot of worry.

So anyway I am intrigued to know why she was able to get her legal bills paid for by her buildings insurance, since the events had occurred long before she took out the insurance.

Does buildings insurance cover events that occurred long before the policy was taken out?
It seems crazy to me if this is the case. To my mind it's like crashing your car without insurance and then claiming after you started the policy.

rs65

Property insurance is written on a claims occurring basis - covers incidents that occur whilst the policy is in force. I didn't exactly follow your scenario but is it possible that it was legal expenses insurance that was used?

teame1

The incident occurred 18-24 months prior to the new neighbour buying the property. It appears an issue existed when the neighbour bought the property, and she used her buildings insurance to take my next door but one neighbour to court.
He probably was a fool for not claiming damages from the prior neighbours who lived in the property when the leak from their extension had originally occurred. Given the length of time that the leak was in action, it's likely that some of the foundations were probably disturbed.

Being an affable laid back guy, he repaired the damage in his back garden and that was the end of it, or that's what he though

2 years later he was taken to court over it by the new neighbour.
She used her buildings insurance to pay for the legal costs.......my next door but one neighbour defended himself although he did pay a solicitor to be there in court.

He won the case but she got 7k of legal costs that she claimed against him, but which was rejected by the judge, and 10k to fix the damage paid for by her buildings insurance.

What I can't understand is why the insurance company picked up a 17k tab for an event that occurred 2 years before the neighbour bought the house with the issue already 2 years old.

Is my question clearer now?

Thanks for your reply by the way.

TSx

If this is a subsidence claim, they are bound by the ABI agreement to deal with it, treating the date of notification as the the date of loss. I'm assuming a survey report didn't reveal anything when they purchased the property. If the insurer has paid out £17k, I am sure they will have done checks before the work goes ahead.

On the other hand, if it's not subsidence, I can't make sense of any of the above.

rs65

Ah yes, its when the damage was discovered. That would make sense. Presumably the damage wasn't evident when the house purchase took place.

teame1

As said, the damage was caused by the leaking pipe.......actually a water mains under the extension.
I think it had damaged the base of the extension as it flowed into my neighbours garden.
I'm not sure but don't think this is subsidence.

He fixed his garden but 2 years later she took him to court.......

As said, the leaking pipe that had caused the damage occurred 2 years prior to her buying the house, yet the insurance company has paid out 17k She was refused costs when it went to court.

Obviously whatever reports she had done before buying missed this problem.

The insurance company didn't interview my friend to find out what had happened.
The first he new was a letter from her solicitors......a big shot firm paid for by her insurance company.
It went through a bunch of stages before the final court case.
As said she was refused the 7k costs......but this plus the 10k work is being picked up the her insurers.....
My next door but one neighbour has only received letters from the lawyers and crawfords who I think are the loss adjusters.

He has the contact at crawfords and I may write all this to find out how he faced the situation he has and ask why the insurance company picked up the costs 2+ years after the original event (burst mains) took place. But I thought I would ask here first.

teame1

rs65 wrote: »

Ah yes, its when the damage was discovered. That would make sense. Presumably the damage wasn't evident when the house purchase took place.

Still hoping someone can provide insight into this one.
If the damage wasn't evident then surely thats down to the reports.
ie If reports carried out and missed then surely it would be the writers fault but again not the insurers?

TSx

teame1 wrote: »

Still hoping someone can provide insight into this one.
If the damage wasn't evident then surely thats down to the reports.
ie If reports carried out and missed then surely it would be the writers fault but again not the insurers?

I can't see anything this would come under other than subsidence - if it is subsidence, the date of noticing becomes the date of loss - if the policyholder didn't know about the problem and only noticed it recently, and it wasn't metioned in any of the surveys then they are obliged to deal with it under the ABI domestic subsidence agreement.

If it wasn't subsidence, what peril do you think was the cause?

teame1

TSx wrote: »

I can't see anything this would come under other than subsidence - if it is subsidence, the date of noticing becomes the date of loss - if the policyholder didn't know about the problem and only noticed it recently, and it wasn't metioned in any of the surveys then they are obliged to deal with it under the ABI domestic subsidence agreement.

If it wasn't subsidence, what peril do you think was the cause?

As I already said, there was a mains leak under the extension which went on for 2 months plus. The damage was caused by this.
How can that be classified as subsidence?