Buckled wood flooring - Household claim?

WombleSW20_2

Afternoon All

Brief background - I rented our my house for a 12 month period and put in place household insurance to cover any damage while I was away. My insurance company acknowledges the cover so there's no issue here of not having the right cover in place.

When I returned to the house and all the tenant's furniture had been removed, I found that the oak flooring that I had installed 5 years earlier had began to buckle and lifted up in places. I spoke to the tenants and they deny any knowledge of this. Similarly there's no obvious leaks from the ceiling so unsure how this happened. I submitted a claim to my insurer and they have stated that the policy does not cover accidental damage and that there is no visible signs of water damage. It was a pretty wet and rainy 12 month while I was away so could dampness from underneath have caused this? And do household policies generally cover this scenario?

The flooring was fine before I left so not sure what to do next? Would welcome any thoughts here.

Thanks!

huckster

A very similar case was raised on here a few weeks back. The consensus was that the floor needs to be lifted and the cause found out. The Insurance company won't do this, unless you have a water leak and you have trace/access cover.

Flooding caused by a rising water table can be treated as flooding, but you would have to prove this and check what your policy wording says about this.

Could it just be the case that the tenants did not have the house heated very much and did not have windows open to vent the house. Damp has therefore caused the flooring to buckle and lift in some places. With you back living there, perhaps if the house is heated over a period and properly vented, the buckling may be cured. Where it has lifted, perhaps it just needs to be secured again.

Are you confident about the quality of the oak flooring ? Some of it does not seem to be as durable as you would think.

WombleSW20_2

Thanks Huckster - very helpful. The floor wasn't premium quality but it certainly wasn't cheap! The tenants disappeared over to Ireland for quite a few weeks leaving the house empty so there is a good chance that the heating was left off and damp caused the buckling. The trouble is, I can't be sure.

While I can't prove the cause, nor can the insurance company. Is it down to me to prove the source / cause of the warping?

InsideInsurance

WombleSW20 wrote: »

Thanks Huckster - very helpful. The floor wasn't premium quality but it certainly wasn't cheap! The tenants disappeared over to Ireland for quite a few weeks leaving the house empty so there is a good chance that the heating was left off and damp caused the buckling. The trouble is, I can't be sure.

While I can't prove the cause, nor can the insurance company. Is it down to me to prove the source / cause of the warping?

Most standard policies are written on an insured perils basis and so cover is only provided if it can be demonstrated that one of the specified events occurred and resulted in the damage. If the cause cannot be ascertained then there is no cover, though its fairly rare for engineers to have no idea whats happened.

Top end policies are written on an all risks basis and in those cases everything is covered unless it can be proven that the damage was a result of one of the specified exceptions. In this case an unknown results in the claim being paid.

On the basis your property was rented out then presumably you didnt get Household insurance as you say but had Landlords insurance? Home insurance wont cover anything but your personal primary residence. I dont know of any all risks Landlords provider, its even rare in Home insurance and typically just those policies aimed at the High Net Worth have it

huckster

WombleSW20 wrote: »

Thanks Huckster - very helpful. The floor wasn't premium quality but it certainly wasn't cheap! The tenants disappeared over to Ireland for quite a few weeks leaving the house empty so there is a good chance that the heating was left off and damp caused the buckling. The trouble is, I can't be sure.

While I can't prove the cause, nor can the insurance company. Is it down to me to prove the source / cause of the warping?

Yes you have to prove that the cause is covered by the policy. I don't know the current cost of a loss adjuster, but at one time it cost the Insurers around £300 per instruction. So you will understand the reluctance of Insurers to send someone around for what appears to just be a floor that has buckled for some reason. They are not going to get someone in to start ripping up your flooring, as there is no current water leak in the property.

You can't even blame the tenants, as you have no evidence that they did something wrong or against the terms of their tenancy.

There are probably companies you can go to who will test the flooring to see what the cause of the buckling is. But I doubt it would be cheap and you have had this flooring for 5 years, so question would be what the manufacturers said about lifespan. Has it been looked after properly, with the correct cleaning instructions advised by the manufacturers. Was it installed properly in the first place.

It might just be easier to see whether you can rectify this damage yourself. Can you still buy the flooring to replace the parts that need doing ?

I personally don't like the wooden flooring that most people have installed. It looks ok to start off with, but after a few years of people walking on it, moving furniture around etc, it starts to look a mess.

WombleSW20_2

Morning All

Just a quick update. My insurance company (LV) sent an investigator onFriday and they could not determine the cause the warping. They haverecommended another company comes in to conduct some type further search investigationto establish where the damp has come from. I got a call from LV this morningstating that I am liable for the first £250 of the investigation costs. I can't believe I should pay for this! Surely thisis an admin cost that LV covers. I've checked the policy wording and this iswhat it states:

Excessesthat apply

Ifyour schedule shows that you have to pay an excess, this is the amount you mustpay as

thefirst part of any claim.

If the investigation is inconclusive or declined, I'm left with a bill for £250, technically a claim affecting my no claims bonus and a floor that remains defective!

Views?

Thanks!

InsideInsurance

Claims include investigation costs and claims that are declined due to coming from uninsured perils.

If there is ever any doubt its best to get things looked into first prior to engaging the insurer

WombleSW20_2

!p!!!g!!! - p!!!!!m w!!h M!M. W!!! !!!p!!d !!!!!.

WombleSW20_2

Sorry - ther's a bug in the system. Will try later

WombleSW20_2

Sorry about earlier - there appears to be problem on the site. In response:

- The policy documents do not state anywhere that I am liable for investigative costs.
- There is inconsistency in their approach. Why have I not been charged the cost of the initial claims call or the engineer to conduct the initial investigation?
- Surely asking me to pay an upfront 'excess' at this point in the claim is creating a barrier to progressing the claim. Does this conflict with TCF outcomes 3 (Clear Information) and 6 (No barriers)?

Thanks

InsideInsurance

You are not "liable" for investigation costs, they simply form part of the claims costs.

Claims costs are divided between allocated and unallocated costs. The call centre that answers your calls, the in house inspectors that come out to have a look and other staff type things are all unallocated costs. They will be part of the insurers overall claims cost but not specifically allocated to your claim file.

Allocated costs are typically external costs, though some insurers do create groups of experts that do actually charge, and will cover both the investigation and settlement of the claim. These are explicitly allocated to your claims file. There are some exceptions though as legal fees which the insurer pays to get advice on if a claim should or shouldnt be covered are unallocated expenses despite being for a specific claim.

The difference between allocated and unallocated are much bigger from a from a reinsurance perspective or where indemnity agreements are in place (not something that happens in personal lines insurance). The point that you are find though is that the first allocated expense triggers the excess to become payable.

By the sounds of it the investigator they have asked to do deeper checks is external and so its cost will be an allocated one. It is normal for the excess to become payable as soon as an allocated cost is going to hit the claim file.

Your policy will state which sections the excess applies to and it would be highly surprising if they have failed to say its payable on claims against the possible sections they are looking at.

I had a somewhat similar situation with my Home Legal Expenses where solicitors said they could assess the probability of success of my claim until there was an engineers report done and as my insurance only provided cover when the solicitors thought there was a 51% or better prospect of success then automatically there was no cover for doing the engineers report.

I took the matter to the FOS and ultimately to an ombudsman - took over 3 years - but ultimately the FOS deemed it fair application of the rules even though in my case they had confirmed cover etc and it was only when the file handler changed that they disagreed with their predecessor and wanted the report so retracted cover. I'd argue that broke even more TCF principles but the FOS disagreed