Home Insurance Rodents cover included?

bery_451

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Insurers do make a distinction between paying to rectify the direct damage, and the associated costs of other consequences arising from the main incident.

Example: At work we suffered water damage from a fault in the flat roof covering. They would not cover the cost of fixing the roof, but did pay for the internal damage to wiring, ceilings, alarm systems etc.

I have read that although rodent damage to wiring is not covered, they usually do cover if as a consequence the house catches fire and burns down.
But it appears to be a grey area.

With the house burnt down example what proof do the insurers have that rodents where the culprit when all evidence of them is vanished in the fire?

bery_451

dacouch wrote: »

This link will show you brokers in your area who are members of Biba

https://www.biba.org.uk/find-insurance

Covea offer optional cover that provides upto £150 to rid your house of pests. Unfortunately they are not a good Insurer

Many thanks will try that website out. Cheers,

Also is there a filter search on their to search only for good insurers or see customer reviews on insurers? Like defaqto 5 star ratings?

FutureGirl

bery_451 wrote: »

With the house burnt down example what proof do the insurers have that rodents where the culprit when all evidence of them is vanished in the fire?

Usually the fire service will look into what caused the fire.

The insurers could also send forensics to the property as well (we do this sometimes).

System

FutureGirl wrote: »

Usually the fire service will look into what caused the fire.

The insurers could also send forensics to the property as well (we do this sometimes).

But it would be useful to have a clear answer from insurers - do they cover the damage consequences of an event that itself is not covered, or not?
The water damage example says yes, the fire situation is not so clear.

FutureGirl

The company I work for would.

rs65

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

But it would be useful to have a clear answer from insurers - do they cover the damage consequences of an event that itself is not covered, or not?
The water damage example says yes, the fire situation is not so clear.

Why do you think the fire situation is not so clear?

rs65

bery_451 wrote: »

Many thanks will try that website out. Cheers,

Also is there a filter search on their to search only for good insurers or see customer reviews on insurers? Like defaqto 5 star ratings?

You can search there for a broker, not an insurer.

System

rs65 wrote: »

Why do you think the fire situation is not so clear?

Because of doubts expressed by other posters. But if you are now clarifying that situation on the basis of some authority or experience, then that's fine. Thank you.

Aretnap

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Because of doubts expressed by other posters. But if you are now clarifying that situation on the basis of some authority or experience, then that's fine. Thank you.

Nobody mentioned fire until you did

Home insurance policies tend to be defined in terms of the risks that they do cover, rather than the risks that they don't cover. So the policy will list various perils - storm damage, subsidence, flood, fire etc.

So if fiire is on the list they'd you are covered against fire, in all its shapes and forms. (The policy may then set out some exceptions to that; for example a fire that you deliberately start yourself won't be covered, nor will a fire caused by nuclear war)

Damage to your wiring caused by nibbling rats won't be covered, because rodent damage isn't (normally) on the list of perils, and it doesn't come under any of the perils that are covered. However if the damaged wiring subsequently causes a fire then that is covered, because your policy does cover fire.

rs65

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Because of doubts expressed by other posters. But if you are now clarifying that situation on the basis of some authority or experience, then that's fine. Thank you.

I don't see doubts by others.

In simple terms - a fire is a fire.