Should insurer check you own the property?

Stoodles

My mother has just died. She lived in an annexe to our house, and in speaking to her insurer I found they have been covering her for both buildings and property. When they realised she had never owned the building they explained that she shouldn't have insured it and refunded that element of her premium to her estate.


Several of the family think I should pursue them for all the previous years too, suggesting they preyed on a vulnerable 80 year old, but I suspect that there is something in her original contract to say she had an insurable interest. Is it worth me spending the time to investigate this?

OnanTheBarbarian

Sorry to read of your loss.

Personal thoughts are not worth it, but if you want to invest the time in wrangling with the insurer/ broker then fair enough.

I would say that much depends on whether it was your late mother who took out the policy or a family member who arranged it. Was she with the same insurer for years an allowed auto-renewal?

If she did, if she only originally took contents cover and then at renewal they have addded buildings cover, there may be something to go on.

But my thoughts are that it boils down to the customer to check the cover is adequate and appropriate as it will be set out in the policy schedule - listing what info you have supplied.

So unless there is evidence she should have been treated as a "vulnerable customer" I think this won't go anywhere.

That's my 2p worth as an armchair expert.

System

As an annexe to your house presumably you were including the property in your own insurance? If you were acting on the assumption that it was your responsibility to insure it, wouldn't it have occured to you to check the position with regard to your mother's occupancy?


We were in almost exactly this situation some years ago when my mother moved into our cottage. It was covered under our own property as an annexe, but when I rang to enquire whether that would remain true if permanently occupied, they said in that case we would need landlord insurance. The company did not provide that, so I had to get specialist cover separately.
When she died, the property resumed its status as an annexe and the landlord policy was no longer needed.


Taking out the separate insurance did not lower our own premium, as the two together were still within the "value up to" figure.

Stoodles

I'm inclined to let this go. We were, and are, insuring the building. I'd assumed she was only covering her contents, but I don't think it is worth taking the time to plough through all the paperwork.

SonOf

Sorry for your loss.

Several of the family think I should pursue them for all the previous years too, suggesting they preyed on a vulnerable 80 year old

If its going back years then she would not always have been 80 and possibly not always vulnerable.

Most house insurance purchases are made without an individual directly involved. So hard to see how "they preyed" on anyone. And they can only go by what they are told. Building insurance is so cheap nowadays (with conventional properties) that it is barely worth the effort.

We were, and are, insuring the building.

Have you checked your insurance covers it? Depending on the on the type of building and annexe style, some insurers will not cover it whilst others will. Going forward, if a direct family member is not living in it, they may also change their position.