Subsidence excess - is this a common policy feature?

The_Last_Coyote

I've got a quote from Morethan for home & contents insurance. On top of the standard £250 excess for both, there is also £1000 excess for subsidence and £250 for escape of water.

Is this a common thing, most of the quotes I've got have just a standard excess of. say, £250, with no mention of additional excess for things like subsidence and escape of water.

Dangermac

The_Last_Coyote wrote: »

I've got a quote from Morethan for home & contents insurance. On top of the standard £250 excess for both, there is also £1000 excess for subsidence and £250 for escape of water.

Is this a common thing, most of the quotes I've got have just a standard excess of. say, £250, with no mention of additional excess for things like subsidence and escape of water.

£1,000 subsidence excess has been pretty common for many years now.

£250 Water excess is a fairly new development. Some insurers have it, some dont. Many are applying this because of their claims experience with regards to this type of event (escape of water).

DM

VictorM_2

Escape of water is one of the things people most claim for, on some of the more basic policies (or if you have an "unfortunate claims history") it is quite common to apply an additional excess for this.

When it comes to a standard Subsidence XS £1000 is nothing compared to what is costs to settle these claims, I bet most insurers spend more than that on surveying fees alone!

Skint_yet_Again

I am with direct line and their excess for subsidence is also £1000, am just getting quotes ready for renewal and most policys are £1000.

However as noted above the "escape of water" excess is something I have noticed appearing this year on many different company policies. Some do not have an excess for "escape of water" but some do note in the "small print" that they will not cover for subsequent subsidence, heave or landslip due to an escape of water. Another reason to always check the full policy document before buying

FlameCloud

Skint_yet_Again wrote: »

I am with direct line and their excess for subsidence is also £1000, am just getting quotes ready for renewal and most policys are £1000.

However as noted above the "escape of water" excess is something I have noticed appearing this year on many different company policies. Some do not have an excess for "escape of water" but some do note in the "small print" that they will not cover for subsequent subsidence, heave or landslip due to an escape of water. Another reason to always check the full policy document before buying

That exclusion is invariably in the specific escape of water peril description and has been common for years. Its basically so the policy can decline a subs claim under the EOW peril (small excess) and force it under the subs specific peril (large excess).

Dependant on where you live in the country, the majority of subs will be caused by drainage leaks washing away the subsoil

weejonnie

The subsidence excess has been on policies for many years, typically £1000 but in areas prone to subsidence it can be £2,500 - this year could be a bad one for subsidence due to the lack of rain with the result of clay shrinking.

The escape of water excess increase is relatively new - it is being imposed due to the fact that a lot of ,snap-on' plumbing installed in the 1970s and 1980s is reaching the end of its natural life with the possibility of many more claims arising.

Skint_yet_Again

FlameCloud wrote: »

That exclusion is invariably in the specific escape of water peril description and has been common for years. Its basically so the policy can decline a subs claim under the EOW peril (small excess) and force it under the subs specific peril (large excess).

I phoned 2 different insurance companies to query this. They both said subsidence due to escape of water is NOT covered under "escape of water" or "subsidence" regardless of the excess. Both companies said this is commonplace in the industry to not cover subsidence in this instance

FlameCloud

I wouldnt trust a claims handler with a query about subs if my life depended on it. For some reason, subs claims seem to create fear in adjusters that are not used to them.

I have spent the last year dealing with these types of claims on £100K plus losses and I have yet to speak an underwriter (note not claims handler) that would think to exclude this type of claim.

TSx

Just to add, as a claims handler (we can sometimes get it right!), I'd agree that there is cover if you have subsidence as a result of an escape of water - if it was a general exclusion, then there would be no cover for subsidence resulting from escape of water - however what they are saying is that subsidence is excluded from any claim under the escape of water section and to be valid, a claim would have to be made under the subsidence section.

They can't turn down a claim under the subsidence section because there is no exclusion under that section for damage caused by escape of water.

Skint_yet_Again

TSx wrote: »

....however what they are saying is that subsidence is excluded from any claim under the escape of water section and to be valid, a claim would have to be made under the subsidence section.

They can't turn down a claim under the subsidence section because there is no exclusion under that section for damage caused by escape of water.

This is what I thought, so I specifically asked if this scenaro would be covered under subsidence section and they were very specific that no it would not. One advisor told me that I cannot choose which section the damage would come under and that if it was due to an escape of water it has to come under "escape of water" and it cannot come under "subsidence".

Anyway, am not going to worry about it unless it happens.. (fingers crossed and all that)

rs65

Skint_yet_Again wrote: »

This is what I thought, so I specifically asked if this scenaro would be covered under subsidence section and they were very specific that no it would not. One advisor told me that I cannot choose which section the damage would come under and that if it was due to an escape of water it has to come under "escape of water" and it cannot come under "subsidence".

They are wrong. If they wanted to exclude subsidence due to escape of water, they should exclude it under both sections.