Home Insurance questions bizarre

Sandtree

Typist said:

Still seems odd to me - have never had Insurance refused before and first time had question of do you have oil fired central heating. A puzzle.

That would be exceptionally odd... there are companies out there that only do non-standard construction and those that don't do any non-standard construction so unless your property is both then you'd have been refused by multiple insurers unless you only have a list of 5 mainstream insurers that you only quote with directly and never used aggregators like confused.com

Mass market insurance is an interesting thing that is based purely on statistics and nothing to do with logic. Take car insurance and the question "where is your car normally kept over night?". In short so many people lie that it becomes a pointless question. Claims cannot be declined because of the fact on the night it was stolen it was on the road rather than the driveway as your statement wasn't that it was kept on the driveway every night. 

Pets cause vast amount of damage and the question either results in a decline, addition of an exclusion of animal damage or higher prices. Many more fires are caused by smokers falling asleep with a cigarette or not putting one out properly than a gas boiler.

I believe the big concern with oil central heating is actually the risk of escape of oil and pollution. 250+ gallons of oil escaping into a local river etc costs a mountain of money to clean up.

kevb1066

Hi, First post on here so hopefully have assigned it to the correct string.
Last year my search for buildings and contents insurance was hindered dramatically by being limited to one company, namely Swinton (already with them anyway). 
LV and Direct Line both refused to insure me purely on the fact I had a Oil Boiler for central heating, I mentioned that this appears to be somewhat ridiculous, also that the boiler in question was annually serviced by the manufacturers engineers but was met with "sorry but that is our policy now ".
Is this lawful? As I now feel that very soon my existing company will follow suit, and in so doing will make my property insurance a impossible task. 
I understand 'Sandtree' comment about the oil leakage and so forth, but a boiler professionally installed at a suitable site and serviced on a regular basis should surely be met with equal commitment from the Insurers, especially when they are aware of such and documentational proof  can be submitted.

user1977

kevb1066 said:

Is this lawful?

Why would it not be lawful? Nobody is obliged to insure your property.

Jaybee_16

kevb1066 said:

Hi, First post on here so hopefully have assigned it to the correct string.
Last year my search for buildings and contents insurance was hindered dramatically by being limited to one company, namely Swinton (already with them anyway). 
LV and Direct Line both refused to insure me purely on the fact I had a Oil Boiler for central heating, I mentioned that this appears to be somewhat ridiculous, also that the boiler in question was annually serviced by the manufacturers engineers but was met with "sorry but that is our policy now ".

Interesting comment about Direct Line. Insured with them in March so dug out the policy document and it states damage caused by leakage from the oil boiler is covered.

kevb1066

user1977 said:

kevb1066 said:

Is this lawful?

Why would it not be lawful? Nobody is obliged to insure your property.

I take your point on that, I probably stated that incorrectly. However I am sure you get my point. I posted on here wondering if there was a obligation of the companies that I was not aware of, and if 'pushed' more during my application for the insurance that they would have eventually accepted.
As with those who live near water sources now finding it near impossible to insure homes. It is the commonsense value more than anything that bugs me. I have a friend who lives near a narrow riverway in another part of the country who has to remain with his present insurers due to them being the only ones who recognise the river is actually hundreds of feet lower than his property down in the valley. Others he approached claimed he was close. So yes, lawful/ unlawful was indeed a miss quote of mine, but..........

kevb1066

Jaybee_16 said:

kevb1066 said:

Hi, First post on here so hopefully have assigned it to the correct string.
Last year my search for buildings and contents insurance was hindered dramatically by being limited to one company, namely Swinton (already with them anyway). 
LV and Direct Line both refused to insure me purely on the fact I had a Oil Boiler for central heating, I mentioned that this appears to be somewhat ridiculous, also that the boiler in question was annually serviced by the manufacturers engineers but was met with "sorry but that is our policy now ".

Interesting comment about Direct Line. Insured with them in March so dug out the policy document and it states damage caused by leakage from the oil boiler is covered.

Hi, That is interesting and obviously glad to hear you are covered for that, however no question it was definitely them.
Although I have just noticed my call to them  was in fact several months before your policy date, possibly have changed the policy ruling? Encouraging, thanks for that.

kevb1066

kevb1066 said:

Jaybee_16 said:

kevb1066 said:

Hi, First post on here so hopefully have assigned it to the correct string.
Last year my search for buildings and contents insurance was hindered dramatically by being limited to one company, namely Swinton (already with them anyway). 
LV and Direct Line both refused to insure me purely on the fact I had a Oil Boiler for central heating, I mentioned that this appears to be somewhat ridiculous, also that the boiler in question was annually serviced by the manufacturers engineers but was met with "sorry but that is our policy now ".

Interesting comment about Direct Line. Insured with them in March so dug out the policy document and it states damage caused by leakage from the oil boiler is covered.

Hi, That is interesting and obviously glad to hear you are covered for that, however no question it was definitely them.
Although I have just noticed my call to them  was in fact several months before your policy date, possibly have changed the policy ruling? Encouraging, thanks for that.

I forgot to clarify - They simply would not insure the property at all due to having a oil boiler, it was not just the boiler they would not entertain.

Sandtree

kevb1066 said:

user1977 said:

kevb1066 said:

Is this lawful?

Why would it not be lawful? Nobody is obliged to insure your property.

I take your point on that, I probably stated that incorrectly. However I am sure you get my point. I posted on here wondering if there was a obligation of the companies that I was not aware of, and if 'pushed' more during my application for the insurance that they would have eventually accepted.

Obligations on insurers to quote would cause a lot of complexity... if the government made insurers quote and those risks turned bad there would naturally be an argument that the government should be the one carrying the cost.

Where there is the potential for this type of issue instead what the government has done is set up a not for profit reinsurer that allows the insurer to pass off the excess risk at, in theory, below commercial rates. So for years there has been Pool Re which is a terrorism cover and more recently there has been Flood Re which covers... well... floods. Hence homes built on flood plains that have been hit by recent flooding can still get home insurance. Unfortunately no such fund exists for oil boilers.

Pushing rarely gets anywhere, front line staff are not empowered to make underwriting decisions. The only time you can is really when the first person has made a mistake rather than changing a decision. 

kevb1066

Thank you so much, interesting and factual message from you there,  I appreciate you explaining it.