Malicious damage clause in buy to let insurance

Legacy_user

I've taken out buy to let insurance on a house that's undergoing some work and is currently empty.
When taking out the insurance I questioned a clause that was called "malicious damage" in the cover and upon further clarification it turns out that technically if a person breaks into my property and does anything that is of a "malicious nature" such as accidentally setting fire to it then I'm not covered. An example could be where someone breaks into the property to keep warm and inadvertently causes an electrical fire
The insurance I'm with is provided by the NatWest Bank and I believe it's part of "Direct Line". (Perhaps someone could clarify)

I find myself paying insurance that doesn't cover any type of criminal damage against my property so I'd like to ask if anybody knows if this is normal and standard clause/practice in the industry or do I need to change my home insurance.

Caz3121

beanfarmer wrote: »

The insurance I'm with is provided by the NatWest Bank and I believe it's part of "Direct Line". (Perhaps someone could clarify)

RBS Group sold it's last shares in Direct Line in 2014

theartfullodger

Next time check the terms of the cover before taking it out - ie read the policy terms, that's what defines things, rather than asking the salesman (yes, that was who you were talking to,,,) what things mean, as finding out the detail later is no help.


If you believe the insurer is interpreting the policy terms incorrectly then you are of course at liberty to sue them. If you believe the broker/salesman misled you sue them.



If you do, good luck with ever getting insurance cover easily or on sensible premiums again.

xylophone

I wouldn't be happy with that at all - should you be consulting an insurance broker so as to get exactly the insurance you need to cover the circumstances?

System

To be precise this "malicious damage" clause is only when the house is actually "not tenanted" which is not the norm but it does mean that each time the property is "vacant" inbetween tenants that this "malicious damage" clause is relevant. I was under pressure to get the insurance than and there otherwise my house would have been completely uninsured. I do have a week or so left to find another alternative insurer

I didn't know if this was a standard and normal clause in the same vein as "act of god" which essentially means that anything such as a natural disaster, war etc is not covered or terrorist attack, these are all standard clauses that are in most insurance contracts

eddddy

beanfarmer wrote: »

..."malicious nature" such as accidentally setting fire to it

Just to clarify - doing something accidentally is essentially the opposite of doing it 'maliciously'.

'Malicious' means intentionally doing something intending to cause harm.

So that might mean vandalism or perhaps somebody with a grudge against you wrecks your property.

(But in the specific example you mention, where a trespasser causes a fire in your house, it might be difficult to establish whether it was accidental or malicious.)

davidmcn

beanfarmer wrote: »

To be precise this "malicious damage" clause is only when the house is actually "not tenanted" which is not the norm but it does mean that each time the property is "vacant" inbetween tenants that this "malicious damage" clause is relevant. I was under pressure to get the insurance than and there otherwise my house would have been completely uninsured. I do have a week or so left to find another alternative insurer

I didn't know if this was a standard and normal clause in the same vein as "act of god" which essentially means that anything such as a natural disaster, war etc is not covered or terrorist attack, these are all standard clauses that are in most insurance contracts

It's normal for insurance to be much more restrictive (and/or more expensive) where properties are vacant, yes. You appear to have a standard landlord policy which assumes the property is occupied (or at least not unoccupied for more than 30 days at a time). If it's empty for longer than that then you should be looking at alternative cover.

Linton

It seems to be pretty standard for house insurance generally not to include malicious damage whilst the house is "unoccupied". Your BTL insurance terms seem much the same.

G_M

Looking at Natwest policy document it covers fire (S1).


It also covers damage caused by malicious persons or vandals (S6), excluding when the property is unoccupied.

S27 also covers mailcious damage by tenants (the standard LL's cover) which cannot be covered by the deposit, up to £10K


https://quotes.business-insurance.natwest.com/AWE/Container.aspx?CurrentWorkflow=UKIBSB2C&CurrentStep=PolicyDocuments&ProductTarget=PropertyOwners

System

eddddy wrote: »

Just to clarify - doing something accidentally is essentially the opposite of doing it 'maliciously'.

'Malicious' means intentionally doing something intending to cause harm.

So that might mean vandalism or perhaps somebody with a grudge against you wrecks your property.

(But in the specific example you mention, where a trespasser causes a fire in your house, it might be difficult to establish whether it was accidental or malicious.)

You raise a very good point! In fact I myself queried this point on the telephone and the agent did say that in my example where a person broke in to keep warm and accidentally caused an electrical fire through trying to keep warm that this would not be covered because the person wasn't supposed to be there hence "malicious" but I don't think he can be a legal expert on interpretation of the exact meaning of the words

System

G_M wrote: »

Looking at Natwest policy document it covers fire (S1).


It also covers damage caused by malicious persons or vandals (S6), excluding when the property is unoccupied.

S27 also covers mailcious damage by tenants (the standard LL's cover) which cannot be covered by the deposit, up to £10K

Yes I believe malicious damage is covered when the property is tenanted.
I believe that fire would be covered as long as it was accidental but the "malicious damage" clause wouldn't cover non accidental fire