Is the insurer trying to fob me off?

sam1970

We had a tiling job in our house last month and while the tiler was removing the old tiles (I was watching him) he noted a smell of gas coming from pipes under the floor. I called the National grid and they confirmed gas leak and isolated gas supply to property. I called my home insurer as I read in my policy document that the building insurance covers underground pipes/drains. They straightaway dismissed my claim saying that if the damage was done by the tiler then his insurance should cover and if it was not then this is wear and tear which they do not cover. I asked then what they meant by stating in the policy (covering damage to underground pipes/drains) and they said this meant if a water/gas leak is suspected they will pay to investigate/identify the leak site but will not pay to repair the leaky pipe/drain itself...they will only cover the cost of damage caused by the leak. To be honest iam not convinced and I feel they are just trying to wriggle out of it...Or are they correct?

theoretica

My insurance has loads of small print about exactly what they do and don't cover for leaks - I think you need to look out your small print and read that bit.  I have certainly read some policies which sound close to what you describe.

[Deleted User]

It doesn't sound as if they're either wriggling or demonstrating any off fobbery,

How do you believe the gas supply became damaged? What does your policy say re cover?

sam1970

My policy clearly says (covers accidental damage to underground pipes/drains) with no further details. They are saying if it was the tiler who caused the damage then his insurance should cover, and if it was not him then it is wear and tear which is also not covered. What other way an underground pipe can be damaged then? 

Aretnap

It is normal for home insurance not to cover wear and tear or routine maintenance. Broadly speaking it's purpose is to protect you against unexpected one-off events which cause damage to your property. The fact that pipes get old and need replacing is not an unexpected one-off event. It's just part of the joy of being a homeowner, like having to replace worn out carpets or fix the leaky roof every now and then.

If you say who the insurer is we can check the policy documents online and confirm what is and isn't covered, but it would be fairly expected for cover for pipes to mean cover for damage caused by a leaky pipe, but not for the pipe itself. 

[Deleted User]

sam1970 said:

What other way an underground pipe can be damaged then? 

Intentional damage, act of war, act of God, etc etc but none of that is important.

If it only covers accidental damage and you did don't damage it accidentally, then you're not covered. And any cover is only that which is specified.

sam1970

Thank you. But clearly I should not be expected to maintain underground pipes. You can't rip out the floors every few years to check the pipes!. The insurer is LV

csgohan4

That's pretty standard with all insurers, even premium ones like HIscox. They don't cover wear and tear. 

I am curious which tradesman will be suitable for this job? Gas safe engineer?

sam1970

Got it sorted out by a gas safe engineer last month. It is just the time of renewal of policy and Iam considering this incident in my decision to renew with them or not.

Aretnap

sam1970 said:

Thank you. But clearly I should not be expected to maintain underground pipes. You can't rip out the floors every few years to check the pipes!. The insurer is LV

Assuming your policy documents are more or less the same as the ones currently online

https://www.lv.com/-/insurance/media/gi/home-insurance/pdfs/policy-documents/2019/30157-2019-lv-home-doi.pdf

then it seems fairly unambiguous. Of the sections which might plausibly cover some aspects of an incident like this:

2. Water or oil leaking from any fixed tank, domestic appliance or pipe wouldn't cover a gas leak anyway, however note that "what's not covered" includes "damage to the tank, appliance or pipe itself, unless caused by freezing"; confirming the general point that they'll cover damage caused by a leaky pipe, but not generally the leaky pipe itself.

16. Trace and access covers, basically, the cost of smashing up your house to find the source of a leak and then putting the house back together again afterwards, but again excludes "the cost to repair the tank, appliance or pipe itself."

Which leaves the accidental damage clauses. If you can show that the damaged pipe was the result of an accident (as opposed to some other cause, like corrosion or underground movement) then it ought to be covered, and I can't see an exclusion which would prevent you claiming because it was the workman who caused the accident. On the other hand if you CAN demonstrate that it was an accident caused by the workman it probably does make more sense to try to claim from him or his insurance first before involving your own; there'd be no excess to pay, and no claim recorded on your own policy for a start.

Whether you can be expected to rip up the floors every few years to check the piped isn't the issue I'm afraid. There's a perception that home insurance should cover "bad things that happen which aren't my fault", or something to that effect. It's a false perception. Home insurance generally covers a defined list of bad things ("perils", in the jargon), and to make a claim you need to be able to point to the peril which you think caused the loss. Accidental damage refers to damage caused by an unintended one-off incident, such as puncturing it with a nail while you try to put a picture up in the wrong place, rather than gradual degradation or corrosion etc.

To be honest, unless you have evidence that it was accidental damage (eg you witnessed the tiler whacking the pipe with a hammer) I don't think that the insurer has done anything wrong - and the response from most other insurers would probably be much the same.