Don't understand why buildings insurance quotes are so different

dacouch

elsbeth wrote: »

Thanks so much both for reviewing, I really appreciate it.

Removing nests - I would imagine this wouldn't be that expensive to pay for yourself, and maybe not even worth making a claim given the excess and sacrificing no claims bonus.

I hadn't spotted the squatters one, thanks, but given the price difference and the fact that I don't know anyone (even friend of a friend) it's happened to, I think I'm prepared to take the risk of having to shell out myself.

Escape of water - both of them exclude "subsidence, heave or landslip caused by escaping water" which sounds like the most expensive/serious outcome. LV also excludes "damage to the tank, appliance or pipe itself, unless caused by freezing; damage caused by the failure, wear and tear or lack of grouting or sealant" which sounds like it would be only a small part of the expenses of an incident? I agree it's not ideal though.

Also I forgot to mention that the NFU policy includes legal expenses cover, but that's not something that's particularly important to me. (Still get public liability on both.)

I guess my overall thinking at this stage is to stick the saved premium into an 'emergency funds' savings account and if one incident happens per say 5 years that isn't covered by LV but would have been covered by NFU, it would hopefully cover it.

1) With a leaking pipe, virtually all insurers will not cover repairing the pipe as insurance covers the damage the water has caused. The leaking pipe is normally not caused by a covered peril on the policy eg it generally leaks due to wear and tear (It being old). If the pipe was damaged by an insured peril eg say Accidental Damage perhaps you stood on a pipe while up in the loft or drilled into a wall and hit a pipe that would normally be covered.

Insurance tends to exclude things such as Subsidence under Escape of Water for the simple reason that Subsidence is has it's own section of cover in which Subsidence cover is more specifically explained along with any exclusions specific to Subsidence.

The exclusion for water under EOW cover tends to be there because the Insurers are saying it's not covered under this section. But it is covered under the Subsidence Section as there are no exclusions under the Subsidence Section for water.

It can be confusing for customers but it's how Insurers word their policies as they're drawn up by legal bods.

As an example, if you look at LV policy under section 2. It excludes damage to the pipe itself (See also my explanation earlier about pipes). However if you look at section 10 Which covers Accidental Damage to pipes it explains they cover Accidental Damage to pipes upto £1k.

hcb42

not sure why the solicitor is surprised at the quote (unless you are buying a mansion) Building insurance is relatively cheap. I dont think mine is any more than £150 with Direct Line (large 4 bed modern home - 15yr old)

barbedhook

I live in a 2 bed mid terrace buildings and contents cover £89 for year I have not claimed on any policy for over ten yrs

elsbeth

Thanks all for your comments, really useful. I think I'll stick with the LV but I'll be able to do it with relative peace of mind now.

I had no idea I was reading the policy wrong (i.e. bits excluded in one section can be included elsewhere) so that was a really useful lesson.

dacouch

elsbeth wrote: »

Thanks all for your comments, really useful. I think I'll stick with the LV but I'll be able to do it with relative peace of mind now.

I had no idea I was reading the policy wrong (i.e. bits excluded in one section can be included elsewhere) so that was a really useful lesson.

It confuses a lot of people.

Reading a policy and understanding what you're buying is rare, give yourself a pat on the back for being one of the few people who read what their policy covers and does not buy on price alone