Storm damage query

minty777

I had rainwater penetrate into a bedroom wall the other day in storm Francis.My query is that the wet patch that was there has now dried and you can't really tell it was wet now.The insurance company are sending an assessor but if it looks dry now, what will the assessors attitude about the water penetration be?Obviously the problem is still there and will happen again if not remedied.Will the assessor just look at it now and presume there's nothing wrong?

Sandtree

No, they will look at the root cause of the water ingress and decide if a) its happened due to an insured peril or b) if its general wear and tear/defective design or construction (eg the pointing has crumbled away with old age or the gutters are clogged up with old debris and so waters overflowing).

They will check the current level of moisture and if necessary recommend driers be installed.

Obviously if the issue is one of maintenance this won't be covered by the policy - insurance covers set perils and isnt a home maintenance contract, indeed there is almost certainly a clause in the policy that states you must keep your home in a good state of repair.

DocQuincy

@minty777 Assuming the assessor has been round, what did they say? I had a similar thing but was able to fix the problem myself (simple tile replacement).

@sandtree “good state of repair” is somewhat subjective. Per my comment above, and my other thread you kindly replied to just now, we have a slate roof in a Victorian terrace and it is the original roof. It is the old kind, with no felt, which is how it is by design. It is dry up there but the recent tile that cracked highlights how old it is. Given that I can't afford to replace the whole roof, and it likely could go for many years without any major issues, yet a tile could go while we're out and cause some internal damage during a bad storm, I am wondering if an insurance company would play the not in a “good state of repair” card in the event of a claim. If I check the loft regularly and keep on top of any leaks does that cover my back in the event if a claim do you think? I get there will still be a peril vs maintenance burden of proof but that would be there regardless of the roof's age. I knoe you can't say for sure, I'm interested to know your opinion though.

Thanks!

Sandtree

There is a notable difference between being "good state of repair" and being "following current design principles".

I am neither a loss adjuster nor a roofing expert but in principle the lack of felt in itself wouldn't be an issue... they already know they are insuring a victorian property and will expect the design/construction methods of the time. If there are multiple cracked tiles I would start to get worried on that potentially being flagged as a maintenance issue... obviously will depend if we are talking 2 tiles with a corner missing or 30 tiles that are split all the way up to the pin/nail and its obvious from the ground. I assume its not reasonable to replace individual slates?

It is common for them to look at the internal of the roof too, if the rafters show evidence of long term ingress then they will be less lenient than if its clear water has only gotten in since the claimed for peril. Ultimately all claims are assessed on their own merit, each insurer has its own guidelines for claims handling and it does come down to the person that happens to be assigned to your file.  Guidelines are supposed to provide a consistent approach but reality will always be peoples personality also plays in.

DocQuincy

Thanks for the useful reply. You have sort of put my mind at rest by reminding me of the fact I gave them the build date of the house and therefore they know they are insuring a Victorian property.

This is the first noticeable bit of water that has come in from the roof and the few times I have been into the loft it has been very dry. I have a friend who is a roofer coming to properly fix the broken tile. I am going to get him to do any other work he thinks needs doing and will see if any other tiles need replacing. As someone who is not a roof expert I don't think I can do any more than that. Like you say, after that it is down to who comes to view it.

One thing I don't get is the line between peril and maintenance. You can't tell a tile will crack, you can only replace it when it does. If the weather has been bad recently and/or there is no sign the water damage has been going on for some time would they possibly not pay for the tile/roof repair (maintenance) but they would pay for the damage from the ingress (peril)? It is not inconceivable that you could be away during a storm, a tile cracks there and then and does some ceiling damage, etc while you're out (as almost happened to us recently). Other than replacing tiles that superficially look okay at regular intervals I don't see how maintenance can prevent that.

minty777

DocQuincy said:

@minty777 Assuming the assessor has been round, what did they say? I had a similar thing but was able to fix the problem myself (simple tile replacement).

@sandtree “good state of repair” is somewhat subjective. Per my comment above, and my other thread you kindly replied to just now, we have a slate roof in a Victorian terrace and it is the original roof. It is the old kind, with no felt, which is how it is by design. It is dry up there but the recent tile that cracked highlights how old it is. Given that I can't afford to replace the whole roof, and it likely could go for many years without any major issues, yet a tile could go while we're out and cause some internal damage during a bad storm, I am wondering if an insurance company would play the not in a “good state of repair” card in the event of a claim. If I check the loft regularly and keep on top of any leaks does that cover my back in the event if a claim do you think? I get there will still be a peril vs maintenance burden of proof but that would be there regardless of the roof's age. I knoe you can't say for sure, I'm interested to know your opinion though.

Thanks!

Insurance claim denied but I am contesting the findings at present.I am also attempting to find and fix the problem myself.Insurer says it was'nt caused by the storm,I say it was,he sort of contradicted himself and seemed new at the job,let's see if I can get it changed,I doubt it but I have complained.

TELLIT01

If a second claim was made due to damp ingress caused by not replacing tiles which are now known to be defective, there would be grounds for the insurer to refuse the claim.  If the assessor reports that there are numerous damaged tiles it would be sensible to get the problem addressed as soon as possible.

Sandtree

Hence I say that looking for signs of long term ingress is one of the first things they will do.

Ultimately these things are part science and part art, I saw a complaint the other day of someone who discovered floodwater in the space below the ground floor (some sort of half height cellar type thing that had no access) after taking a floorboard up and there was a chain of emails between the loss adjuster saying there was clearly evidence of being there a long time and the customer forwarding emails from the water board saying actually algae can grow in standing water in a matter of days.

The adjuster will be asking when did the issue arise and were reasonable efforts taken to deal with it prior to the storm. Ultimately there comes a point where you know major works are needed to be done though even if you've been patching things up as minor issues arise. 

This can be the other tricky element with claims and often ends in cash settlements where only part is damaged but the whole thing needs replacing as its reached its end of life or other such issues like asbestos in artex ceilings etc.

DocQuincy

Hope you get it sorted.

I just checked my policy booklet and my insurer actually defines what a storm is. Among other things 25mm of rain or more in 24 hours or winds reaching 55MPH or more. I presume they use that to dismiss “maintenance” claims easily. It seems a bit strict as I'm sure you can get damage from winds < 55MPH. I will call them to clarify but sounds like I wouldn't have been covered anyway as I'm sure with the previous storm the winds did not get that fast; I don't know about rainfall.