Alternate Accommodation

rs65

FlameCloud wrote: »

It would obviously depend on the insurer but alot of policies include cover escape of oil (its normally just below EOW in policy wordings).

Ah, I see. That's where mine says 'escape of oil from a fixed heating system'. Would that include the pipe supplying the house?

VictorM_2

FlameCloud wrote: »

It would obviously depend on the insurer but alot of policies include cover escape of oil (its normally just below EOW in policy wordings). Escape of Oil claims can be a complete pain in the !!!! to deal with, I have seen several houses practically rebuilt due to the contamination of the sub soil.

Its one of the few cases where as an adjuster you need to realistically consider a total loss if the leak is bad.

A lot of insurers would not cover contaminated subsoil either even with an escape of oil peril. The thinking being that the "land" is not a building and therefore not part of the buildings policy.

And you're of course right about how difficult they can be to deal with - especially if there is a nearby watercourse.

FlameCloud

VictorM wrote: »

A lot of insurers would not cover contaminated subsoil either even with an escape of oil peril. The thinking being that the "land" is not a building and therefore not part of the buildings policy.

And you're of course right about how difficult they can be to deal with - especially if there is a nearby watercourse.

Its quite an interesting one and I agree policies are loose on it but from dealing with FOS complaints for subs claims they would expect the definition of a buildings to included its specific made ground underneath the strip foundations. This is because you cannot construct the building without it. Extrapolating this I don't think they would differ for an eoo claim.

VictorM_2

FlameCloud wrote: »

Its quite an interesting one and I agree policies are loose on it but from dealing with FOS complaints for subs claims they would expect the definition of a buildings to included its specific made ground underneath the strip foundations. This is because you cannot construct the building without it. Extrapolating this I don't think they would differ for an eoo claim.

Many policies I have dealt with in the past and present are very specific on the matter about what buildings is and is not. I can certainly see the FOS looking into them though.

FlameCloud

But thats the point, they normally define it as something like 'the home, its fixtures and fittings, swimming pools, fences hedges paths etc etc'.

The sub structure is just as much a part of the home as the roof or walls are (indeed probably more important) and unless they specifically exclude made ground I don't see how they would be able to avoid it. You home will also rarely mention anything about the walls or roofs yet no one would think that they would be excluded.

trinity_enigma

Well according to her claims handler it appears to be covered and they were the ones who suggested alternate accommodation. However it is not a problem it the accom is not covered, she will still stay with us she just thinks if we can then we should make a little money out of the situation.

I'm not too sure about the rental prices for our area as we live in a village and I'm not even sure there are any rental properties. When we did rent in town we paid £425 for a two bedroom house with no parking and no garden if that has any bearing on things.