Subsidence "get-out" clause

GreyArea_2

A friend of mine has asked me to check something out. Her insurer has the following "get-out" clause in their policy;

"You will not be covered for damage to, or resulting from, the movement of solid floor slabs unless the foundations beneath the external walls of your home are damaged at the same time, by the same cause"

Unfortunately the assessor has said that in this case she won't be covered due to this clause. My initial thought was to recommend waiting (most insurance companies have a waiting time for subsidence claims anyway - they have to monitor crack movements and suchlike) but they specify that "at the same time".

For me that's a little ridiculous - subsidence is not something that happens instantly, it is a gradual process (short of mineshaft collapses and earth tremors!) and to my mind a floor is always likely to sink before a foundation (in most cases a domestic floor would be weaker than a foundation)...or am I barking up the wrong tree?

To me it looks like they have said "We cover subsidence, except when it's subsidence". I'd appreciate your comments or experiences.

tyllwyd

Could you explain a bit more - so your friend's floor is subsiding, but the walls of the house are not affected? Does she know what is the cause of the problem with the floor?

I would have read that clause (as a layperson with no legal knowledge!) as saying "If your floor subsides because it hasn't been constructed properly, that's your problem. We will only get involved if the damage to the floor is as a result of movement of the foundations"

dacouch

Some Insurers do exclude the slab moving.

The slab can often move due to the material underneath distintergrating eg built on degradable materials.

An entire very large estate near me had the same problem with every single house, the builders had just thrown their builders rubbish in and then laid the slab on top. Inevitably the rubbish rotted and reduced in size in time making the slabs drop.

GreyArea_2

She's had the insurer's surveyor in because her floor (concrete I believe) has sunk. He has confirmed he believes it is subsidence, but as yet the walls are not affected. The property is quite old so this isn't shrinkage movement or poor construction. (I know about concrete floors as I worked in that field for many years).

I personally believe the movement is caused by changes in the water table from last year's heavy rains (ie, true subsidence) and that it's only a matter of time before the walls show signs of it too - but my friend is worried that the "at the same time" part of the clause will be applied if she waits.

That for me is the ridiculous part of this clause. Apart from the fact that it's buried in small print, it would actually encourage people to wait before approaching their insurer as it penalises those people who notice a problem and contact them early - at a stage when remedial action COULD be a lot cheaper.

dacouch

She needs to read her policy as some policy exclude damage due to a change in the water table as well as some exclude damage to the slab