We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
home insuranxe terms: land movement=subsidence? HEEEELP!!!
reinin
Posts: 2 Newbie
I need your help in a different opinion that I have with Capita Insurance, who provides the legal representation component of a policy under which my home is insured with Norwich Union Direct.
Due to subsidence of the adjoining semi-detached property my main window on the front elevation is propped up, with the lintel over it split into 2 parts. The lintel is therefore not working, and I am unable to open and operate the window normally. I was convinced Capita will provide me with the urgently needed legal cover.
The reason given by Capita is a clause excluding claims in respect of ‘…land movement, mining or quarrying…’. I believe the firm uses unfair terms in their standardised customer contract as explained below:
(1) I understand the words stated in the policy ‘…land movement, mining or quarrying…’ are to be classified as ‘esjudem generis’, which is a legal Latin phrase meaning ‘of the same kind’. Therefore ‘land movement’ should really be considered as landslip, land slide, not a simple adjustment of ground by way subsidence in a residential property.
(2) Relevant dictionary definitions also demonstrate that the exclusion clause – even if it were fair – would apply only in respect of massive and far-reaching land movements. The cause of the damage to my semi-detached house is the recent localised tendency of the adjoining property to ‘split away’ from my own.
I do not believe that they should be able to ‘escape’ from their obligations towards the person insured, who reasonably assumed this legal expenses cover applied when paying premiums.
What can I do? Any comments are welcome!!!
Due to subsidence of the adjoining semi-detached property my main window on the front elevation is propped up, with the lintel over it split into 2 parts. The lintel is therefore not working, and I am unable to open and operate the window normally. I was convinced Capita will provide me with the urgently needed legal cover.
The reason given by Capita is a clause excluding claims in respect of ‘…land movement, mining or quarrying…’. I believe the firm uses unfair terms in their standardised customer contract as explained below:
(1) I understand the words stated in the policy ‘…land movement, mining or quarrying…’ are to be classified as ‘esjudem generis’, which is a legal Latin phrase meaning ‘of the same kind’. Therefore ‘land movement’ should really be considered as landslip, land slide, not a simple adjustment of ground by way subsidence in a residential property.
(2) Relevant dictionary definitions also demonstrate that the exclusion clause – even if it were fair – would apply only in respect of massive and far-reaching land movements. The cause of the damage to my semi-detached house is the recent localised tendency of the adjoining property to ‘split away’ from my own.
I do not believe that they should be able to ‘escape’ from their obligations towards the person insured, who reasonably assumed this legal expenses cover applied when paying premiums.
What can I do? Any comments are welcome!!!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards