When is subsidence not subsidence? Appealing insurer's decision

CaliGuy

I live in an end-terrace townhouse in southeast London and in Oct 2018, I noticed cracks on two internal walls in a room which the previous property owners had converted from a garage into an office.

The cracks corresponded with where a new door frame and wall (replacing a garage door) had been installed. My insurer carried out soil pit tests and a tree assessment, and determined that the soil had shrunk due to consecutive dry summers, contributing to some movement and the hairline cracks.

Two trees growing to the left and right of my property, on my neighbours' land, were removed in April 2020. The monitoring has since shown no movement. Also, neither one of my neighbours' properties had shown any sign of movement.

My insurer has deemed this claim to be subsidence, but in reality, the cracks were due to movement, exacerbated by poor materials/building work on the garage conversion.

My insurer decided not to renew my insurance the day before it was due to renew in July 2019, but as I had an outstanding claim, no other provider would offer cover. They relented and provided cover, and the the claim was finally settled in April 2020 after the trees had been removed.

Is there a way I can appeal their classification of the claim as subsidence? My premiums have doubled and it is almost impossible to find an alternative provider. My home has not required any underpinning, only cosmetic plastering and a bit of repainting internal walls.

I'd greatly appreciate any advice and guidance on this matter, and hear whether anyone else has experienced anything similar.
Thanks in advance!

Sea_Shell

What excess did you pay?   Subsidence excesses are usually high.  £1000+

What alternative peril do you think the damage should be covered under?

Annemos

Yes I have had some of the same experiences. I am not an Engineer or Insurance Professional,  but here are some thoughts.

Let's assume for the moment that it was indeed Subsidence: 

Mine also subsided in Autumn 2018 and I was also dropped from Subsidence Insurance 5 days before mine was due. It took me 5 months of a battle for me to get it back. 

The Insurance Industry-wide agreement, is that the Insurance Company that did the Subsidence repairs should provide Continuation of Cover on an ongoing basis. (During the claim and afterwards.) 

I am just exceedingly happy if I do get a Policy with my Insurance Company on an ongoing basis.

Because, as you have found, to lose it, is probably the worse thing that can happen to a Subsidence property and its homeowner, in my opinion. It causes untold stress to the homeowner to lose it and many sleepless nights. 

The policy is going to be more expensive, because the risk profile has increased. 

Also, supposing that what they have done is not enough and your property moves again. You would perhaps be able to re-open the claim with the Insurance company that did your repairs, for further investigations. Their repairs are supposed to be Lasting and Effective repairs. (It could get more messy, if you have moved to another provider.) 


Is it Subsidence?:

Possibly the only way you could challenge that, would be if you got your own structural engineer in and they had another opinion.

But the type of things the Insurance Company looks at are: What type of soil is it under the foundations (e.g. clay).  Did they find any tree root evidence under the foundation? Did the monitoring show that the cracks closed up again during the winter rehydration? (That latter one is evidence of ground movement affecting foundations, due to drying out and then rehydrating.)

As I say, I am not an Engineer, but I wonder if the fact that the building may have had an extra weakness in that area, that showed the Subsidence up sooner, does not take away from the fact that there was perhaps Subsidence going on under the foundation. 


Re the other houses: I have found out that one property is liable to get struck first with the ground movement. It depends on where the trees are in relation to the properties. And as you had two trees on either side, could they have caused the additional stress to the property that was in the middle? 

dunstonh

The cracks corresponded with where a new door frame and wall (replacing a garage door) had been installed. My insurer carried out soil pit tests and a tree assessment, and determined that the soil had shrunk due to consecutive dry summers, contributing to some movement and the hairline cracks.

Normally that would not be classed as subsidence but as movement.   Movement is commonplace.  Indeed, in our area, most houses stretch and contract each year and on hot dry summers, bits of plaster go ping and new cracks appear.  Routine and normal.

My insurer has deemed this claim to be subsidence, but in reality, the cracks were due to movement, exacerbated by poor materials/building work on the garage conversion.

In the 80s, insurers were scared of subsidence but things are much better understood now.   However, this doesn't necessarily mean all insurers are as understanding of the subject than others.

Is there a way I can appeal their classification of the claim as subsidence? My premiums have doubled and it is almost impossible to find an alternative provider. My home has not required any underpinning, only cosmetic plastering and a bit of repainting internal walls.

Was a structural engineer employed to give it a rating?  If it was rated as 2 or under then it's not usually a concern to insurers.  And that would not normally be classed as subsidence.

However, if you are getting your quotes from comparison sites then expect them to baulk at simplest things.  You are often better avoiding comparison sites in this scenario and use a better insurer.     We use NFU and they took a copy of the report and were happy to insure it.

Annemos

Yes that makes sense,especially if there are not any trees? But if they have shown that the movement was due to tree roots drying out the clay, does that make a difference? 

Mine was also classed as a grade 2. But it was obviously Subsidence. There was the cracking inside and outside and also the tell-tale zig zag cracking effect. 

dunstonh

Yes that makes sense,especially if there are not any trees? But if they have shown that the movement was due to tree roots drying out the clay, does that make a difference? 

Ours is on clay, surrounded partly with a moat on one side and a row of trees around 5 metres away, including  a mature Oak.  Drainage from guttering was poor historically and a flooding basement at one point.   We have had cracking internally and externally. It was graded 2 and was classed as movement.    Not subsidence.  Even the report mentioned that one wing was slightly dropped.  Indeed, it drops enough that a marble will roll across the room.  Yet, still not subsidence and no repairs to the building other than cosmetic and fixing the causes.

Sandtree

You are in a catch 22 really... if its just normal movement and poor workmanship etc then there is no insurance cover as these are not insured perils. The insurer has considered it to be susidence for which there is insurance cover and therefore they have settled the claim. 

You would basically be arguing that the claim should never have been made and that you should be refunding them their claim costs outside of the initial checks to determine if its subsidence or settlement/poor workmanship. 

If you've always thought it was an insured event why did you claim? Or it is "buyer's remorse" in that you were happy you managed to get them to cover the costs initially but now realising the consequences you wish you hadn't? 

rs65

Sandtree said:

You would basically be arguing that the claim should never have been made and that you should be refunding them their claim costs outside of the initial checks to determine if its subsidence or settlement/poor workmanship. 

That was my thoughts.  Make sure you are/were covered for whatever you want it to be reclassified as

CaliGuy

Sea_Shell said:

What excess did you pay?   Subsidence excesses are usually high.  £1000+

What alternative peril do you think the damage should be covered under?

I paid a £1000 excess, with the belief (fear) at the time it was indeed subsidence.

Mistral001

If this was not classified as subsidence, then the claim would not have been paid as structural faults are not normally covered under home insurance.   You can hire your own structural engineer to give you a second opinion so as to possibly satisfy other insurers and for your own peace of mind. 

CaliGuy

Sandtree said:

You are in a catch 22 really... if its just normal movement and poor workmanship etc then there is no insurance cover as these are not insured perils. The insurer has considered it to be susidence for which there is insurance cover and therefore they have settled the claim. 

You would basically be arguing that the claim should never have been made and that you should be refunding them their claim costs outside of the initial checks to determine if its subsidence or settlement/poor workmanship. 

If you've always thought it was an insured event why did you claim? Or it is "buyer's remorse" in that you were happy you managed to get them to cover the costs initially but now realising the consequences you wish you hadn't? 

You're right - it is a Catch-22 situation. At the point of making a claim, I didn't know the cause of the cracks and made the claim to get to the root issue. It's only through my insurer's investigation and the resulting report that I now know it was a mix of movement/workmanship/materials that caused the cracks. Hindsight is 20/20; if I'd known that at the time, I'd not involved my insurer. At least I've peace of mind knowing it's not a serious case of subsidence that requires underpinning etc, but it does mean the claim is classed as 'Subsidence/settlement/heave' which affects my premiums. Lesson learned.