Home insurance - accidental damage cover

ellectrastar

Is it really worth it?



I get it if you have expensive furnishings maybe, but even then would you have to prove their value? With average priced contents would it be worth claiming for? Especially when you've got to pay the excess to start with.



And what sort of accident befalls a building?

Quentin

Think catastrophic flood/burst pipe/fire etc

ellectrastar

So say the electrics cause a fire - that's classed as accidental? (Sorry if this sounds ignorant...)

paddyandstumpy

Quentin wrote: »

Think catastrophic flood/burst pipe/fire etc

Nope. That would be the perils of flood, escape of water and fire respectively.

A/D on buildings covers things like putting your foot through the ceiling, a nail through a pipe (the resultant water damage would be covered anyway under escape of water but the pipe would only be covered under A/D) or putting a hot pot on a worktop and burning it.

Seditious_Libeller

Taps left running and causing a bath to overflow is often excluded or not covered under escape of water peril, but is picked up under the AD extension. There have also been a few cases where a building has been damaged from vibrations of nearby building works and the insurer's decision has turned on whether the policyholder had AD cover or not, because the cause was not subs/movement etc. Most underground services and glass claims fall under AD (despite there often being no obvious cause) although the majority of, but not all, policies will offer those AD covers as standard. Given the normally negligible difference in premium, on what is normally a very cheap product to begin with, the inclusion of AD should be worthwhile. It can significantly broaden your coverage and make it harder for insurers to deny claims.