Flood Damage insurance PROBLEM

soolin

courtjester, you make some sensible suggestions there.

I would add to that by suggesting that you keep any newspaper records, or other information pertaining to the flooding in your area. If you can show that you have never flooded before, nor was the house at any 'unusual ' risk *and* you can show documentary evidence that the flood occured after you took the insurance your case will be strengthened.

I was just reminded, having watched the TV, that many areas can no longer get cover against flooding due to the increased risk in some areas. It might be worth seeing if you can find any information about that as well. A place we stayed at in Cornwall for instance were bemoaning the fact that despite never having flooded they were in a high risk area and could no longer get coverage for flooding.

1jim

I agree with soolin and courtjester, their advice seems sound,
I dont know much about this but I would have thought that as long as you were not flooded at the time of taking out the policy and as long as you answered all the underwriting questions accuratly then they should pay up, surely its up to the insurance company to assess the risk of flooding/fire etc when quoting for cover, you shouldnt have to tell them somewhere 20miles away is flooded. I would have done the same in your situation and thankfully you took out insurance just in time, fingers crossed for you
Jim

gazza975526570

I cant see you having any issues whatsoever - i dont think any questions whatsoever will be asked of you

Providing you had the insurance before any loss occurred you will get paid out - including your alt accomodation.

Woby_Tide

raskazz wrote: »

As ever, it helps to actually read the policy documentation and assumptions that are made for the purposes of the online quote being valid.

Firstly:

http://www.churchill.com/home/home_assumptions.htm

"Your property has not been damaged by flood and is not in an area liable to flood"

Not knowing the exact postcode it's not accurate but teh Environment Agency Flood Maps show the area described as 'Ravenfield' in Rotherham as having zero flood risk bar a tiny bit of open land near a river/stream.

That said there is always the "Act of God " card for the insurer to fall back on

mattymoo

Woby_Tide wrote: »

That said there is always the "Act of God " card for the insurer to fall back on

Not sure what you are suggesting here but there is no such things for 1st party claims - where the policyholder is claiming from their own insurer.

Act of god only comes into play when the policyholder is sued by someone else for negligence but the thing was totally out of the insured's control. For instance, if the flood waters picked up your car (A) and carried it downstream where it hit another car (B). If the owner of B tried to sue the owner of A, the courts would reject the claim because there is no negligence on A's part. This often gets interpretted as act of god and arises in flood and storm type claims.

gerkin

OP discovered flood warnings and realised that he was not insured. He then did the right thing. He got himself insured against this catastrophe. What is wrong with that ? He did not get an insurance after the flood. In which case it would have been interpreted as fraud. Why do we all get insurance then ? For such circumstances which happen and which is not under our control. The insurance companies cannot have their cake and eat it too. They gave out the insurance and so they should pay out. Sounds fair to me.

mattymoo

Gerkin and courtjester are both spot on. Churchills fault for not putting blocks on their advisors / web site systems to turn away business in affected areas.

OP - hope your claim gets sorted soon. Have you had a visit from Munters (or similar) yet with their drying systems or are you still waiting for the waters to subside?