Home insurance query

thamesmatt

Hi, too cut a long story short whilst having my floors sanded a nail went through a pipe and water gushed down through the house causing plaster damage etc...

The insurance company are claiming its a water damage claim so my excess is £300 but I think it is accidental damage (lower excess) because the pipe wouldnt have flooded the house it it wasnt accidently damaged.

its a technicality but I think they are pulling a fast one!


Does anyone know whether I have a poiint and how to present it to the insurance company to have the best chance of getting them to backdown. I havent challenged it yet I have just expressed my dismay!

raskazz

thamesmatt wrote: »

Hi, too cut a long story short whilst having my floors sanded a nail went through a pipe and water gushed down through the house causing plaster damage etc...

The insurance company are claiming its a water damage claim so my excess is £300 but I think it is accidental damage (lower excess) because the pipe wouldnt have flooded the house it it wasnt accidently damaged.

its a technicality but I think they are pulling a fast one!


Does anyone know whether I have a poiint and how to present it to the insurance company to have the best chance of getting them to backdown. I havent challenged it yet I have just expressed my dismay!

Maybe the line of reasoning is that if you were merely claiming for a new pipe then the AD excess would apply (because that is what was accidentally damaged); because you are claiming for water damage then the water damage excess applies.

Depends on the wording of your policy though at the end of the day - have a careful read through it.

foxyuk

it is buildings accidental damage cover excess that should apply not the contents one.....

if there is any damage to floorcoverings etc this would come under the contents....

give them a call and put them in there place

foxyuk

raskazz wrote: »

Maybe the line of reasoning is that if you were merely claiming for a new pipe then the AD excess would apply (because that is what was accidentally damaged); because you are claiming for water damage then the water damage excess applies.

Depends on the wording of your policy though at the end of the day - have a careful read through it.

hes claiming water damage to the buidings ie the walls not any contents

raskazz

foxyuk wrote: »

hes claiming water damage to the buidings ie the walls not any contents

Yes that is clear however if you read the original post nowhere does it state that that the insurers are incorrectly applying a contents excess to buildings damage, merely that they are stating the excess applicable is the water damage excess rather than accidental damage excess.

thamesmatt

so essentially the excess applies to the result rather than the cause of the claim.

i.e. in a silly example if I accidently did something that caused subsidence then it would be the £1000 excess rather than the £50 accidental damage

Vindiesel

thamesmatt wrote: »

so essentially the excess applies to the result rather than the cause of the claim.

i.e. in a silly example if I accidently did something that caused subsidence then it would be the £1000 excess rather than the £50 accidental damage

***In insurance, there is a 'law' called the proximate cause. *** This means if say lightning hit your aerial, travelled through to your tv cauing it to blow up, then that led to a fire, causing your house to burn down, the cause of all of this was the lightning, NOT the fire.

Therefore, the OP's original incident, IS the accidental damage to the pipe, NOT the water damage. The AD to the pipe CAUSED the escape of water, and subsequent damage. The water would not have escaped without the AD. Therefore, if a lower XS applies to AD, then that is what you should be paying.

I suggest you call the claims dept back immediately, and explain proximate cause. They should know this anyway, as it is a fundamental law of insurance, it is not company specific.

Good luck :-)

raskazz

Vindiesel wrote: »

***In insurance, there is a 'law' called the proximate cause. *** This means if say lightning hit your aerial, travelled through to your tv cauing it to blow up, then that led to a fire, causing your house to burn down, the cause of all of this was the lightning, NOT the fire.

Therefore, the OP's original incident, IS the accidental damage to the pipe, NOT the water damage. The AD to the pipe CAUSED the escape of water, and subsequent damage. The water would not have escaped without the AD. Therefore, if a lower XS applies to AD, then that is what you should be paying.

I suggest you call the claims dept back immediately, and explain proximate cause. They should know this anyway, as it is a fundamental law of insurance, it is not company specific.

Good luck :-)

This is not necessarily correct. The law of proximate cause is normally used to establish whether a claim is valid or whether it was caused by an excluded peril.

Different levels of excess can still apply after a loss from the same proximate cause.

As a crude example, in motor insurance if a stone gets kicked up into your car windscreen and breaks it - you pay a glass excess to get it fixed. If the windscreen breaks so severely that it caused you to prang into a tree - you pay an accidental damage excess. Same proximate cause, different excess.

Again, it depends entirely on the policy wording. The orginal poster should have a careful look through his policy.