Insurance company recovering damages via client

rs65

I didn't see any mention of uninsured losses.

If I was the OP's mother I wouldn't be signing anything that contains a clause such as that in post #6.

BertTheRaccoon

rs65 wrote: »

I didn't see any mention of uninsured losses.

If I was the OP's mother I wouldn't be signing anything that contains a clause such as that in post #6.

The solicitors have to check that the policyholder does not have any uninsured losses though. I would guess she had to pay an excess, maybe she has other expenses that have not been covered by the policy?

If the sols don't check, they are negligent as the policyholder can't go on the rampage for their own losses later down the line, they have to form part of the same litigation that the insurers are taking. If they don't ask and give advice about that now and the policyholder later on wants to get their own losses back and the sols have not advised on this, they potentially would be the source of a claim by the policyholder for her prejudiced position.

The insurance policy won't cover the policyholder's legal costs of pursuing her own uninsured losses, hence the suggestion an ATE policy may be needed by the solicitors.

The form of assignment & agreement may work in this situation, but there is still likely to be a requirement for a statement to be given etc if there is a dispute on the claim and further clarification is needed. So it is not a guaranteed get out of jail card.

magpiecottage

This seems to be a case where the OP's mother's house has been damaged by the roots of a tree. It is the responsibility of the trees owner to ensure it does not cause damage to a neighbours property.

Her own insurers have met the cost of the repair but in reality the responsibility for that cost rests with the owner - in this case the council.

So the insurer wants its money back.

This has to be made in the name of the policyholder because it is their property that has been damaged but in reality their involvement is usually minimal.

If the insurance company is successful, there is a possibility that the excess paid by the policyholder will be returned. If it is not successful the insurance company will pick up the costs.

It is not really something to worry about and if you do get the excess back that will be a bonus.

megadishu

The main problem is stress and emotion. I cannot explain the fight over more than several years to resolve and get the damage repaired. My Mother is in her 70s and this has terrified her whatever advice given. I do not want precious years of her life blighted by worry - as she will whatever I say.

I appreciate the insurance company want their money back but why oh why does this have to involve my disabled mother who is fragile. The insurance company have been horrendous - plus the other companies involved. We have been through hell and now more. It might be minimal involvement and hopefully everything is covered but ....

I think it unlikely that is will be sorted in a month or so ...

Pincher

I went through a subsidence process similar to yours, for my mother, who is now 83.

It took about 12 years. Tree damage, council refusal to cut down the tree etc. The underpinning was finally done about four years ago, and we could start redecorating.

About two years ago, the claim was finally settled, they suddenly wanted to go after the council for all the money they paid out, which I guess could be anything from £30k to £60k
A woman rang up from the loss adjuster, and just wanted a drawing of the front of house. No mention of needing my mother.

It seems there is a separate legal department, and nobody could be bothered to retrieve the files for her from the case history, so it's easier to get me to draw one for her. After that, not a peep.

A neighbour decided not to claim on insurance, and simply claimed against the council direct. This is an interesting approach, as her insurance premium does not go up, because there is no subsidence claim history. We, on the other hand, face high premium forever, and no other company will insure our house, which means no one can get a mortgage for it, making the house almost unsellable.

So, in retrospect, getting a lawyer and confronting the council is possibly the best approach, as opposed to hiding behind the insurance company, who will stab you in your chest instead of in your back.

rs65

Pincher wrote: »

A neighbour decided not to claim on insurance, and simply claimed against the council direct. This is an interesting approach, as her insurance premium does not go up, because there is no subsidence claim history. We, on the other hand, face high premium forever, and no other company will insure our house, which means no one can get a mortgage for it, making the house almost unsellable.

The question is usually 'has your house ever suffered from subsidence' rather than have you made a claim for subsidence. Presumably the neighbour has answered 'no' to this and will possibly now run into problems with any future claims.

Similarly, it is the subsidence event that makes buyers/lenders nervous, not an actual claim against an insurer.

dacouch

Pincher wrote: »

I went through a subsidence process similar to yours, for my mother, who is now 83.

It took about 12 years. Tree damage, council refusal to cut down the tree etc. The underpinning was finally done about four years ago, and we could start redecorating.

About two years ago, the claim was finally settled, they suddenly wanted to go after the council for all the money they paid out, which I guess could be anything from £30k to £60k
A woman rang up from the loss adjuster, and just wanted a drawing of the front of house. No mention of needing my mother.

It seems there is a separate legal department, and nobody could be bothered to retrieve the files for her from the case history, so it's easier to get me to draw one for her. After that, not a peep.

A neighbour decided not to claim on insurance, and simply claimed against the council direct. This is an interesting approach, as her insurance premium does not go up, because there is no subsidence claim history. We, on the other hand, face high premium forever, and no other company will insure our house, which means no one can get a mortgage for it, making the house almost unsellable.

So, in retrospect, getting a lawyer and confronting the council is possibly the best approach, as opposed to hiding behind the insurance company, who will stab you in your chest instead of in your back.

Further to what RS has mentioned, when you go to sell the house and the buyers solicitor will ask for confirmation from her Insurers that they're willing to transfer the policy to the buyer and continue offering subsidence cover. It's highly likely that the Insurers will refuse to do this as they did not handle the claim.

The above will mean at the very best the sale will stall while they seek alternative cover which takes some time and will cost considerably more than normal. The buyers then either negotiate a substantial discount eg 10% to 20% or withdraw from the sale.

They will not find this out until they try and sell the house.

In addition by claiming from the Home Insurer they're liable for any further subsidence and / or any faults in their work. When claiming against the council it would involve another civil case

There are very few circumstances when it would be best to claim directly from the council.

hugoshavez

dacouch wrote: »

Further to what RS has mentioned, when you go to sell the house and the buyers solicitor will ask for confirmation from her Insurers that they're willing to transfer the policy to the buyer and continue offering subsidence cover. It's highly likely that the Insurers will refuse to do this as they did not handle the claim.

The above will mean at the very best the sale will stall while they seek alternative cover which takes some time and will cost considerably more than normal. The buyers then either negotiate a substantial discount eg 10% to 20% or withdraw from the sale.

They will not find this out until they try and sell the house.

In addition by claiming from the Home Insurer they're liable for any further subsidence and / or any faults in their work. When claiming against the council it would involve another civil case

There are very few circumstances when it would be best to claim directly from the council.

That could be the least of it. As RS says, a future claim could be a big problem.

If your neighbours were to return from a winter break for example, and found that the water main had burst in the attic, they could conceivably be looking at £50k of damage to buildings and contents. If their insurers see the house has suffered subsidence and they'd not been informed, they could void the policy and pay nothing, leaving them with a mouldy stinking shell.

Pincher

They can't ask has the house had subsidence in the last one HUNDRED years? It's usually something like ten years.
For the neighbour, if she gets the tree cut down and redecorate, there is nothing to say subsidence to anyone. All she has to do is live in the house for ten years, and tick NO when she sells. In the mean time she can change insurance companies and enjoy low premium.


My claim is on file with the insurance company, and probably will stay on record forever. The really annoying thing is, if we had put the premium from the last 20 years for this house in a deposit account, it would have paid for underpinning and more. We are now stuck with high premium forever.

dacouch

Pincher wrote: »

They can't ask has the house had subsidence in the last one HUNDRED years? It's usually something like ten years.
For the neighbour, if she gets the tree cut down and redecorate, there is nothing to say subsidence to anyone. All she has to do is live in the house for ten years, and tick NO when she sells. In the mean time she can change insurance companies and enjoy low premium.


My claim is on file with the insurance company, and probably will stay on record forever. The really annoying thing is, if we had put the premium from the last 20 years for this house in a deposit account, it would have paid for underpinning and more. We are now stuck with high premium forever.

They can and do ask a question to the effect "Has the house EVER suffered from subsidence or been underpinned". Many Insurers also ask if any neighbooring properties have EVER suffered subsidence or been underpinned.

There are a currently a few exceptions.

If your neighboor takes out Insurance and does not answer the question correctly the Insurer can and likely will decline any claims should they find out about it (There are often records against the house via reports held at the local council). In this event your neighboor would also have to declare FOREVER that she has had a policy voided which will make it very difficult to obtain any type of insurance including motor and life insurance.

If there was any underpinning then the buyers surveyor will spot it.