Empty property insurance - wording of policy

usman330

We have an empty property which is up for sale the moment and im arranging buildings insurance for it. Its tricky to get a decent price as its a small market of insurers and many have little quirks such as draining heating and strange locks on doors.

This policy I have found is well priced and doesn't have any major quirks.

The quote I have received is for a Level 1 policy which provides fire cover but not malicious damage or vandalism.
I want to make sure I am covered for arson but I am unsure if arson would fall under 'fire' or malicious damage.

The policy summary shows this:

As you can see, fire is ticked but malicious damage is not, so I am not sure which one arson would fall under.


I have asked the broker for clarity and they have said this:

In regards to including arson, the insurer will assess what the proximate cause of the damage is and if the peril is covered then a claim can be pursued, as the level one cover includes fire damage, any fire damage would be eligible for a claim to be pursued.


I then spoke to the broker on the phone and they basically repeated what is said above.

Any opinions or advice are welcome.

gollum007

Malicious damage.

Fire would be for something like the neighbours catching fire and it spreading to you, or an electrical fault causing a fire.

Zorillo

Arson is fire, and would be covered as such.

usman330

Zorillo wrote: »

Arson is fire, and would be covered as such.

The google definition or arson is:
'the criminal act of deliberately setting fire to property.'

Should I be concerned in regards to that definition as it says the 'deliberate' act, versus a normal fire which wouldn't be deliberate, hence deliberate could also be viewed as a malicious act...?

Zorillo

Ok, I'll rephrase it. Arson is the malicious or criminal act of starting a fire, and the fire would be covered as such.

The basis of all property insurance is fire cover. A restriction on type of fire would be very rare.

gollum007

Zorillo wrote: »

Ok, I'll rephrase it. Arson is the malicious or criminal act of starting a fire, and the fire would be covered as such.

The basis of all property insurance is fire cover. A restriction on type of fire would be very rare.

This is un-occupied property cover :rolleyes:

A restriction on Arson is absolutely standard here- There is far more opportunity, and a far greater chance that any resultant fire will do serious damage due to no occupants there to notice it.....

FlameCloud

I disagree that this is malicious damage - even on an unoccupied policy I cannot imagine any insurer dealing with this as anything else other than fire.

Zorillo

gollum007 wrote: »

This is un-occupied property cover :rolleyes:

A restriction on Arson is absolutely standard here- There is far more opportunity, and a far greater chance that any resultant fire will do serious damage due to no occupants there to notice it.....

Can you provide any evidence for that?

gollum007

Zorillo wrote: »

Can you provide any evidence for that?

First, a note:
This is a highly specicalised area of insurance. Cover can, and will vary from firm to firm, and the exclusions list needs to be read extremely carefully.


Take an example (Adrian Flux, who are a broker, and pass out the Unoccupied section to amongst others Tansar):
https://d2mul7yli79m9i.cloudfront.net/home-insurance/TANSAR_Home_Unoccupied_2017_06.pdf
A similar case is that of Vasek:
https://www.vasek.co.uk/docs/2018-policy-wordings/Vasek_Unoccupied_Property_Policy_Wording_JUN18.pdf


Section 1.1, damage caused by included perils:

Flux wrote:

• Fire, explosion, lightning, earthquake.
• Smoke.
• Riot, civil commotion, labour or political disturbances.
• Malicious persons or vandals.



N.B. others included too, these are the more interesting ones for these purposes

Note that fire is listed as an entirely separate peril to vandals/ malicious persons. It cannot be any clearer than that; Insurance works on proximate (closest) cause, so in the cause of arson, the first cause & hence the insured peril would not be fire, as this so-to-speak a side effect, but malicious persons or vandals.


In both these cases, the insurers to have chosen to cover both perils under the standard level of cover, but this can and does vary. From reading the policy booket, it would appear (although I have not spoken to either), that these policies are designed for a furnished home, which is unoccupied on a reasonably tempoary basis (e.g. working away), not an unfurnished and empty house.



Most insurers in this sector work using this standard set of definitions, and as you choose to leave the property empty for longer, exclusions will be added, and perils will be withdrawn as you get closer to the long-term empty end of the market.

Zorillo

You're wrong Gollum. If they're offering Fire cover and not specifically excluding Fire caused by Arson, a fire caused by arson is covered.

gollum007

Please go away and look up proximate cause and it's insurance implications......
Your understanding is fatally flawed.

Some light reading for you:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cila.co.uk/cila/download-link/getting-qualified/certificate/48-chapter-8&ved=2ahUKEwjy5_DMkfzdAhXKDewKHbQWBI0QFjACegQICxAO&usg=AOvVaw0bofutg3KalPnG68DA5p-Z

OP: Please don't necessarily listen to either of us.
You know neither of us from a hole in the wall, and I encourage you to specifically clarify this in writing from any insurer before you take out any policy. This at least will give you comeback