Is buildings insurance worth it???

oldwiring

It does seem a little unfair to raise the premium because of a refused claim. A case of cake and eat it:rolleyes:

ben500

oldwiring wrote: »

It does seem a little unfair to raise the premium because of a refused claim. A case of cake and eat it:rolleyes:

Not at all, the premium is based on future risk and not past cost, until the insurer has to investigate a claim they provide the insured with the benefit of the doubt and take them for their word as to the structural integrity and general upkeep of the house, having been out to assess the cause and extent of an incident and actually seen that the property is not being adequately maintained, they are now aware that the risk to them as insurers is higher and that is reflected in future premiums, the fact that the claim has been declined is of no real consequence, should the property be continually under maintained then they WILL most certainly sustain future loss, up to this point this has only been a speculatory factor in calculating the premium. Bear in mind a claim for storm damage can be repudiated if the externals are unkempt but if an "accidental damage" extension is in place on the policy then the internals may well be covered provided storm conditions prevail at the time of the incident.

HTH

courtjester

Tend to agree with most of the comments here, but to add my tuppence worth:

Most claims that generate bad feeling from customers and which serve to foster the usual anecdotes about 'bad' insurers wriggling out of claims, in fact almost always relate to minor losses which people 'think' should be covered, such as the owner's responsibility to maintain their own property. This is a lack of understanding about the product purchased (or too much listening to the 'experts' down the pub!).

Insurance is intended to be one method of dealing with risk by spreading it. The idea is that you absorb the risk you can afford (like repairing and maintaining your property) and insure the risk you couldn't afford - like losing the whole house.

Most people could at a push afford to pay £300-£400 for unforeseen repairs, but would find it impossible to deal with a £200,000 rebuild cost.

I'm not saying that insurers are never caught behaving badly, but too often it's a case of over-expectation.

For the record, in 25 years of loss-adjusting, I have seen hundreds, if not thousands of cases of total burnouts due to fire, and even more cases of exceptionally severe damage and loss due to flooding and the worst storms - quite apart from all the stress and chaos this causes in people's lives, the financial impact is massive and totally unmanageable without adequate insurance protection.

So without doubt, if you own a building and don't have unlimited cash waiting in the bank to buy a new one if you lose it, then building insurance is cheap considering the piece of mind it offers.

webuserisme

In answer to the thread question, it was ALWAYS worth it! In these halcyon Quidco days, it's frankly a no-brainer. :rolleyes:

MarkyMarkD

On "Grand Designs" recently, they featured a family whose house burned down (it was thatched) and their insurance had lapsed. They lost a horrendous amount of money, and had they not been seriously wadded financially, they would have been left homeless AND with an enormous mortgage to pay.

Not having buildings insurance is mad unless you have the deepest pockets imaginable.

ben500

Come on courtjester keep up it's "peace of mind" I already corrected my own error no point in drawing attention to the fact I screwed up if people aren't going to put it to benefit, a clear case of failure to mitigate if I ever saw one.:rotfl:

courtjester

On application of the (below) average clause, the piece of mind I was using earlier has now been declared void...