Accientally burst a pipe-house floods-No Cover!!

martin57

Hi there,

I have been told by my insurance company (legal and general) that under their standard policy, that for example should I or a workman accidentally put a nail through a water pipe upstairs, and house floods then I am not covered under their standard policy, unless I have also taken out buildings accidental damage. However it seems under the general run of things should the house flood through a faulty valve etc, then I am covered. I have been using this kind of standard policy for years none the wiser (and luckily no claims) but its a bit scary now that I am that bit wiser.

Well if this is true and they insist it is, then buildings accidental damage surely must be considered a necessity for everyone no matter what company they are with?

Martin57

Subnet

Anyone you employ to carry out household works and repairs "should" themselves be insured against damages.

Ask to see their policy before allowing work to commence.

ps. I'm no expert - but my last builder who messed up big time handled it all under his policy!

mattymoo

Subnet is right but you must notice his heavy emphasis on the word "Should". There is no legal requirement for contractors to carry public liability cover and many one man outfits and the cowboys do not have cover in place.

Also, to claim against the contractor you have to prove they were negligent. Sometimes its clear cut but not always.

Finally, the contractors public liability cover will only pay out what a court would award you - the market value of the item. So if he damaged a TV that cost £1000, five years ago, you would only receive around £300.

To get new for old cover you need to insure yourself and to cover this eventuality, you need buildings acc. damage cover.

courtjester

I think there is some confusion here.

I wonder actually how it came to be that you had this conversation with your insurers and who exactly it was that told you what you appear to have understood.

If you are referring to water damage to the building structure (as opposed to contents and furnishings), a standard buildings policy covers the damage to the structure due to water escaping from a pipe irrespective of the cause of that escape or burst. On household policies this may be the "Burst Pipe" or "Escape of Water" peril.

What it DOESN'T cover is the cost of repairing the pipe itself, although many policies cover that cost if the cause is frost.

So is this the real point of the confusion? - did your insurers think you were asking about the cost of plumbing repairs, which indeed would not be covered.

In normal circumstances, the buildings insurance would pay for the cost of the water damage and then a legal claim would be made against the contractor who caused the damage (or their liability insurers as appropriate).

Mattymoo - new for old should not be confused with accidental damage cover, the two are not linked.

"New for old" is a basis of settling /valuing the damage.

"Accidental Damage" cover is an extension of the basic list of major risks the policy normally covers (such as storm, fire, flood etc).

Most household buildings policies automatically offer new for old basis of settlement, but extending to cover accidental damage risks is an extra.

martin57

Well I have put this query to a few different people at legal and general and both have come back with same answer, that if you have a standard policy and you accidentally burst a pipe yourself or a workman does, then things like water damage to ceillings etc are not covered, unless you have buildings accidental damage as well. I was not asking about cost of plumbing repairs etc, merely the water damage to the building

martin57

courtjester

That's nonsense frankly.

Who are you talking to at the company? The sales or customer service side often have little understanding of what policies actually cover, although even some of the claims staff can be pretty dubious in their appreciation of the finer points of how insurance works.

I think your insurers (or the idiots you are talking to) are getting confused with your use of the word 'accidentally' or 'accident', which merely qualifies the incident as non-malicious. The standard policy covers 'accidents', the Accidental Damage cover is an extension to the basic set of instances, it is not the only part of the policy which covers things that happen accidentally.

Why are you asking this question of your insurers anyway, it's rather curious? Are you intending to go around banging nails into pipes?

You really need to look at the policy wording - if you have it, can you post here what the (standard) policy actually says about Burst Pipe cover?

I've just looked up the L&G home policy wording on line and the standard cover (Peril 7) covers:

"Escape of Water from or frost damage to any .... plumbed in domestic water or heating installation."

It does not specify any exclusion of circumstances in which such 'escape of water' will not be covered except in the case of the building being unoccupied for periods longer than 40 days.

So irrespective of HOW the escape of water occurred, the resulting water damage to the building (or contents if covered) is indeed insured under this policy as it would be under any home policy and extending the policy to cover "Accidental Damage" is entirely spurious to such a loss.

AD cover is really for the minor losses that may occur, like say pulling the guttering down when you fall off the ladder. The standard policy covers the major perils which are more in the 'disaster' category like fire, major flooding, storms ripping the roof off, etc. and this INCLUDES water damage through burst pipes, which can be particularly catastrophic and result in damage running to thousands...

jamie304

I am wondering about this as I have just had a flood from a pipe and will phone my insurers tomorrow. I plumbed a dishwasher in a couple of weeks ago - all seemed fine, but i just noticed that it was now leaking at the connection. I think the sub floor of the kitchen will need replacing :eek:

My policy says it covers "escape of water from any fixed water installation or from any domestic appliance" and the only exclusion listed underneath is if the home has been unoccupied for more than 60 days. However some other items in the policy specifically mention an "uninsurable risks" exclusion. One of the uninsurable risks is faulty workmanship or materials

Great I thought, this water damage won't be excluded due to my 'faulty' workmanship in installing the dishwasher (or the faulty materials in the connector - not sure what the cause is yet). At the end of the policy booklet though, it says "Exclusions that apply to the whole policy" and lists "uninsurable risks" again! Does this mean they will not pay out and claim I should have had accidental damage cover?

courtjester

jamie - you're safe, the water damge is covered.

It doesn't matter that it might have been due to your own (bad?) plumbing work.

The exclusion of "faulty workmanship" refers to rectification of faults in work carried out or items purchased - which is the province of guarantee or warranties.

For example, if a contractor builds a wall so badly that it falls over within a week, the loss is due to 'faulty workmanship' - which is the contractors responsibility to put right under guarantee. You couldn't claim for this under an insurance policy.

In your case, you can't claim for fixing the faulty plumbing work you did, but the resulting escape of water has caused damage which IS covered and the exclusion does not apply to that separate damage.

Having accidental damage (AD) cover makes no difference in your situation as the basic water damage is covered under either standard or AD terms and the exclusion of the cost of rectifying faulty workmanship applies equally to either standard or AD losses.

dunstonh

Funnily enough, accidental damage cover means you are covered for damage caused by an accident.

If you don't have that cover, then you are leaving yourself wide open to get rejected if you have a claim. Over 80% of claims fall under accidental damage.

You would expect a contractor (such as a builder) to cover any damage they make either out of their own pocket or through their liability cover. However, it is best not assume they have cover.

Having accidental damage (AD) cover makes no difference in your situation as the basic water damage is covered under either standard or AD terms and the exclusion of the cost of rectifying faulty workmanship applies equally to either standard or AD losses.

I disagree. The water damage caused as a result of accidental damage and therefore would only be covered if you have accidental damage coverage. Anything that stems from an accident requires accidental damage cover.

lesley1960

Oh great , as i type this I have a plumber here fixing a small hole in a pipe caused by the floorers installing a hardwood floor ( the pipes were clearly marked on the floor).......the wood , unsurprisingly ,has warped , and has now been ripped up .
We have been unable to contact the installer .........we have been trying for ages , due to other problems with his work.

I have just changed our insurance , better check the cover

peterbaker

dunstonh wrote: »

I disagree. The water damage caused as a result of accidental damage and therefore would only be covered if you have accidental damage coverage. Anything that stems from an accident requires accidental damage cover.

Hi dunstonh! As you may recall, I do have a bit of old general insurance career knowledge. I say 'old' because things change rapidly thesedays.

I am going to sit on the fence on this one for a moment. I err toward's courtjester's view. Courtjester writes like he also knows a general insurance thing or two:-) whereas I know your specialty dunstonh is life and pensions business:-)

I am so old that I can remember when the modern concept of Accidental Damage (AD) cover was a new gimmick.

Before serious gimmicks in insurance marketing, there were some well founded 'Accidental Damage' type covers already built into most companies' basic wordings. Fixed glass and sanitary fixtures was one such. And there were a hell of a lot of words on the subject of water damage in an attempt to get a fair coverage across.

There have since Roman times at least been some rather basic plumbing catastrophes that can spoil your day! Hammering nails into pipework is just one.

There are many examples in insurance where specific accidental damage loss e.g. the cost of fixing of the actual hole in the pipe are excluded, BUT the "ensuing" damage is covered (usually subject to a deductible excess for water damage).

Is this one of them? (I may be barking up the wrong tree...but some habits die hard!)

I always thought of this general 'design' as an almost parental approach by insurers to policyholders (yes! now they were the good old days!) - "Now then, that was bloody silly of you - look at the mess! OK we'll handle the mess, but you must fix the pipe, just so you don't get off Scot-free and you do learn not to do it again!"

But none of this pays Lesley's plumber bill which is just for the pipe itself today, does it, unless she DOES have the wider gimmicky? Accidental Damage cover.

Actually AD cover is no longer a gimmick really, and I do agree with Dunstonh that modern AD cover is the best to go for purely to increase your chances of satisfaction after 'goodness knows what happens next'!