Subsidence not covered when house "Unoccupied - Awaiting Sale"

eeel

Hi, has anyone else come across this scenario ?   I've googled it but found nothing.
A warning to others in a similar situation. 
I've given a brief summary below. Comments welcome.

• My father moved into a nursing home in Sept 2017 and I changed the home insurance (buildings and contents) to “Unoccupied – Awaiting Sale”.

• For reasons unrelated to the house, it has yet to go on the market and the insurance is up for renewal in April 2020 (my father passed away in March 2020 and the name on the policy has been changed to “Executors of”).

• I noticed the following endorsement had been added to the April 2020 renewal invitation…   Section 1 Buildings & Section 2 Contents of this insurance do not cover loss or damage by subsidence, heave of the site upon which the buildings stand or landslip.

• When querying this, I was advised that subsidence has not in fact been covered since Oct 2017 when the status changed to “Unoccupied – Awaiting Sale”. There is the following statement in the perils section which I had overlooked…. Subsidence or heave of the site upon which the buildings stand or landslip (unless the property is awaiting sale or undergoing structural alterations in which case this peril is excluded)    
• The policy is through a broker. Am I naive to think that the broker should have pointed this out rather that leaving it for me to spot  (or miss, which I did) ? Shouldn't the broker have offered me an alternative policy in Sept 2017 including subsidence cover (which they have now done) ?   

dunstonh

The policy is through a broker. Am I naive to think that the broker should have pointed this out rather that leaving it for me to spot  (or miss, which I did) ?

Did you employ the broker on an advised basis? both at time of change and at renewal?  Or did you just give an instruction that it was unoccupied and just let the renewal papers come through and renew?

eeel

dunstonh said:

The policy is through a broker. Am I naive to think that the broker should have pointed this out rather that leaving it for me to spot  (or miss, which I did) ?

Did you employ the broker on an advised basis? both at time of change and at renewal?  Or did you just give an instruction that it was unoccupied and just let the renewal papers come through and renew?

The latter (i.e. just gave an instruction that it was unoccupied and just let the renewal papers come through and renewed).
I was however, initially given a choice of 4 "levels" of cover, and I chose level 4 the broadest cover (and most expensive).

Not sure what the original broker/client relationship was with my father.

TELLIT01

If you purchased through a broker, and advised them that the property was empty, I would be unhappy if they didn't inform me of any exclusions which came into effect because the building was empty. Yes, you should have read the policy, but I still think the lack of advice from the broker was bad.  Use a different broker in future.

dunstonh

The issue is in part down to the relationship between the customer and the broker (and they may not be brokers but arrangers).   Was it a comparison site, an IFA firm, estate agent, traditional brokerage etc?

if it was a call to "let you know that the property is going to be empty pending sale as I am moving into a nursing home" style then the broker may have just passed that message on like that.    If it was a question along the lines of "I am going into a nursing home the property is going up for sale. Are there any issues with that on my policy" then its very much a different thing.

Also, if the original sale was non-advised and placement only, then it would normally remain that way until advice is ever sought. 

There is also the issue that not every T&C has to be gone through with the individual. Just the key risks.   I suspect that this would not be considered a key risk as most sales take place within months and subsidence is an issue that usually builds up over years.

So, really it comes down to how things were said and the business relationship in place.