Home Insurance - Contents & subsidence

Steve_xx

My friends' house was underpinned some 30 years ago due to some heave/subsidence, but all has been ok since. Therefore he can only insure it for buildings cover with Halifax (the mortgage bank).

He recently got his renewal for contents through and decided he would get a comparison from moneysupermarket. It seems he could save 50% if he changed. However, it seems that even for contents insurance that insurers are asking questions about the history of subsidence. It seems that this is a new tactic.

It seems unreasonable to me. Does anyone else have this problem or have any advice on the subject?

raskazz

Steve_xx wrote: »

My friends' house was underpinned some 30 years ago due to some heave/subsidence, but all has been ok since. Therefore he can only insure it for buildings cover with Halifax (the mortgage bank).

He recently got his renewal for contents through and decided he would get a comparison from moneysupermarket. It seems he could save 50% if he changed. However, it seems that even for contents insurance that insurers are asking questions about the history of subsidence. It seems that this is a new tactic.

It seems unreasonable to me. Does anyone else have this problem or have any advice on the subject?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me - if subsidence is a risk factor in insuring the building it is obviously also a risk factor in terms of insuring the contents of the building.

Steve_xx

I take your point. But here, we're talking 30 years ago and the house is underpinned and therefore stable and has been since it was done. Arguably, because it is under-pinned, it is more stable than it might otherwise be, even had it not suffered the heave/subsidence in the first instant.

Therefore, I disagree with you if you think it reasonable for them to discriminate in this way. Insurers, while wishing to minimise their risk, must take on some risk otherwise there is no point in having insurance at all.

I wonder how people in places like Amsterdam go on? Properties there are often contorted horrendously. They must have some insurance cover on them, I'm sure.

raskazz

Steve_xx wrote: »

I take your point. But here, we're talking 30 years ago and the house is underpinned and therefore stable and has been since it was done. Arguably, because it is under-pinned, it is more stable than it might otherwise be, even had it not suffered the heave/subsidence in the first instant.

Therefore, I disagree with you if you think it reasonable for them to discriminate in this way. Insurers, while wishing to minimise their risk, must take on some risk otherwise there is no point in having insurance at all.

I wonder how people in places like Amsterdam go on? Properties there are often contorted horrendously. They must have some insurance cover on them, I'm sure.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your original post but it seemed to me that you thought that insurers were being unreasonable in asking for information in relation to the subsidence. I don't think it is. It is clearly information that any competant and prudent insurer would require in order to set premiums.

Of course, the effect of the information will vary according each particular insurer's underwriting criteria.