water leak v insurers

dgwave73

I have a burst pipe within an external wall. I discovered this when I heard the pipe running and isolated it straight away (probably within an hour hopefully). I have started an insurance claim and they sent an assessor today. He told me I am not covered. This is because there is no visible damage!! They will not carry out trace and repair without visible signs of damage. I pointed out there could be unseen damage but apparently it is down to me to fix the leak. This could be hugely costly as the remedy may involve removal of tiles from a shower and am unlikely to get a match as it's some years since it was done.  Surely this can't be right? where do I stand?

pramsay13

Sounds about right. Get a plumber to come and fix the leak. 
If the damage is substantial then you can claim at that point. 

DullGreyGuy

Whats the cause of the burst? Unless you can pinpoint it to being you accidentally sticking a nail into it (and you have AD cover) or such then the burst itself is never covered just the subsequent escape of water is. The burst itself will be wear & tear which Home insurance doesnt cover (it covers events, its not a maintenance contract)

Trace and access is an enhanced cover on mid range policies, it covers the cost of finding the leak and making good the damage to do so (still doesnt cover fixing the leak itself). It however only responds if the leak has caused damage, ie you have a claim for EoW, and if the leak has caused no damage then there is no cover.

Think of it like a courtesy car on your car insurance... if you have a claim for damage to your car the insurer provides a courtesy car. If you car needs to go in for mechanical work, you dont get a courtesy car from your car insurer as you have no claim.