Insurer won't cover cost of repairing storm damaged wall.

Puk

I have a brick perimeter wall, which was damaged by a storm in spring. Half of the 6' wall was flattened, and the remainder has been become unstable. The person who inspected wall stated that the entire wall should be rebuilt, unfortunately he has left the company. Subsequently my insurer has offered to cover half of the cost of rebuilding the flattened portion. They are refusing to cover the cost of repairing the unstable part. They have offered £2k against a quote fro complete rebuild of £8k.

To make things more complicated the other party (a commercial company) are dragging their feet too. Verbally they have agreed that the entire wall need to be rebuilt, and that they will meet half the cost. However, there is nothing in writing.

Is there an option to get the extent of the damage reviewed?
What options do I have to apply pressure to speed things to conclusion (it has taken 6 months so far)?

[Deleted User]

Why are they refusing to pay the whole cost? Are they saying it's down to lack of maintenance or something like that?

And who is this third party? Did something fall on your wall? Usually unless they failed to maintain whatever fell, they aren't liable at all.

Puk

No reason has been offered for refusing to pay to renovate the unstable part of the wall. The insurance company must be liable for repairing the wall, otherwise they would not have inspected it, nor offered to repair the collapsed portion.  I suspect that they are just trying it on.

The wall itself is over 100 years old, and was damaged by one of the storms in February. Nothing fell on it.

The third party is a restaurant, the wall is one of the boundaries of their outdoor dining area.

[Deleted User]

An insurer inspecting something doesn't mean that they're accepting liability.

They might also be wary of this third-party offering half of the money, because that sounds like the third-party is worried that actually they are liable - the third-party's insurer would then need to get involved and would stop anything being put in writing.

If you're worried that someone is "trying it on", then get a loss assessor, but it's an expensive way to check a tin-foil hunch.

Puk

@SparkyGrad

"An insurer inspecting something doesn't mean that they're accepting liability." agreed, but the T&Cs do state that walls zre covered by my policy (fences are not), further more they have accepted liability for rebuilding the fallen part of the wall, but not  still standing but unstable part.

Initially the assessor that visited my property told me that the whole wall would need to be rebuilt. A few weeks later the company (who seem to be handling my claim on behalf of my insurance company) stated that the wall was owned by the other party, hence they were not liable. When I asked why they felt that the 3rd party owned the wall they declined to explain, but it must have been with reference to the deeds lodged with the council. Since then an old deed has come to light, my neighbour had it in his loft, and that clearly states that the wall is jointly owned. I've passed that to both my insurance company and the third party.

The insurance company have now said, verbally, that the whole wall needs to be rebuilt, but will only offer 50% of the lowest quote - which was for only rebuilding half the wall! I've asked them to put this in writing. This is the 4th person that I've spoken with from that company I'm wondering about the quality of the notes that they keep. As I have said previously, after 7 months, it does feel as though I'm just been given the run around - I think that your suggestion of using a loss assessor could be the way to go.

Ganga

Puk said:

@SparkyGrad

"An insurer inspecting something doesn't mean that they're accepting liability." agreed, but the T&Cs do state that walls zre covered by my policy (fences are not), further more they have accepted liability for rebuilding the fallen part of the wall, but not  still standing but unstable part.

Initially the assessor that visited my property told me that the whole wall would need to be rebuilt. A few weeks later the company (who seem to be handling my claim on behalf of my insurance company) stated that the wall was owned by the other party, hence they were not liable. When I asked why they felt that the 3rd party owned the wall they declined to explain, but it must have been with reference to the deeds lodged with the council. Since then an old deed has come to light, my neighbour had it in his loft, and that clearly states that the wall is jointly owned. I've passed that to both my insurance company and the third party.

The insurance company have now said, verbally, that the whole wall needs to be rebuilt, but will only offer 50% of the lowest quote - which was for only rebuilding half the wall! I've asked them to put this in writing. This is the 4th person that I've spoken with from that company I'm wondering about the quality of the notes that they keep. As I have said previously, after 7 months, it does feel as though I'm just been given the run around - I think that your suggestion of using a loss assessor could be the way to go.

As the wall is jointly owned is your insurance company not only liable for your half? is this not the reason they will only pay 50% of the lowest quote.

Puk

The lowest quote is for 100% of the cost to rebuild half the wall, not all of the wall. IT only covers the half which was blown down by storm Eunice. That quote does not cover the cost of the other half of the wall which is still standing but unstable. The other quotes which I have are for rebuilding the entire wall. It would seem reasonable to expect the insurance company to meet half the cost of rebuilding the entire wall.