House Building Insurance - Trees covered???

Telegraph_Sam

The insurance co (and in particular the gent that I was speaking to) goes by what's stated and defined in their "policy wording", understandably enough. Relatively few of us, I suspect, work through all the small print until the occasion for a claim arises. At which point "exclusions" appear in negotiations with the Claims Dept. What some of them don't like is objectionable people like myself, before taking out or renewing a policy, digging deeper into how the policy wording would work out in practice, particularly if by doing this "gaps" in the cover are revealed which mean that I risk taking my business elsewhere, rather than being a good boy and just accepting what's on offer. I believe that there is an official Met Office definition of a "storm" [Force 10] and  this is what the insurers (some of them) take as a convenient shield in terms of the limits of the cover they provide without having to be too overt about it. 

Telegraph_Sam

Re Aretnap's " I don't think I've ever a policy that required trees to be maintained to any particular standard or schedule". Precisely since if there was such a stipulation then the obvious query would be "why"?

Thrugelmir

Aretnap said:

Thrugelmir said:

Telegraph_Sam said:

.. including subsidence which is a separate issue. My point was myself being made to believe that I was covered against damage caused by "wind" when in fact this applies only in extreme circumstances - when was the last time we had an inland Force 10? And whether this attitude  was unique or commonplace with insurers.

As the insured you would need to take all reasonable precautions to protect your property. This would naturally include tree maintenance. 

Not particularly. The policy will specify  precautions which the insured has to take, such as ensuring that the house is locked when unoccupied. I don't think I've ever a policy that required trees to be maintained to any particular standard or schedule.

It's true that most polices will also have a clause along the lines of "you must take reasonable care of the property", however the courts and the Ombudsman quite rightly don't like insurers using such vague clauses to deny claims, so the level of neglect that is required to activate them is very high. It's more along the lines of the insured's behaviour being wholly unreasonable (eg leaving a tree which was obviously in a dangerous condition, even to the untrained eye) rather that a failure to take all reasonable precautions (like getting a tree surgeon round to any particular schedule). 

Isn't it common sense at the end of the day?  Rather than needing spelling out line by line.

Aretnap

Thrugelmir said:

Aretnap said:

Thrugelmir said:

Telegraph_Sam said:

.. including subsidence which is a separate issue. My point was myself being made to believe that I was covered against damage caused by "wind" when in fact this applies only in extreme circumstances - when was the last time we had an inland Force 10? And whether this attitude  was unique or commonplace with insurers.

As the insured you would need to take all reasonable precautions to protect your property. This would naturally include tree maintenance. 

Not particularly. The policy will specify  precautions which the insured has to take, such as ensuring that the house is locked when unoccupied. I don't think I've ever a policy that required trees to be maintained to any particular standard or schedule.

It's true that most polices will also have a clause along the lines of "you must take reasonable care of the property", however the courts and the Ombudsman quite rightly don't like insurers using such vague clauses to deny claims, so the level of neglect that is required to activate them is very high. It's more along the lines of the insured's behaviour being wholly unreasonable (eg leaving a tree which was obviously in a dangerous condition, even to the untrained eye) rather that a failure to take all reasonable precautions (like getting a tree surgeon round to any particular schedule). 

Isn't it common sense at the end of the day?  Rather than needing spelling out line by line.

Not really. Your idea of what's common sense may be very different from mine. It's the insurer that writes the contract so it's their job to spell out what is and isn't covered. Where there's uncertainty it's interpreted in favour of the consumer. That's basic consumer law.