Home insurance with a home battery

wiscombe64

I have solar panels and home batteries, installed in 2020. When I renewed my home contents and building insurance there were no questions regarding such systems and I didn’t raise the issue. If it was important the insurer would ask, right? I have established via FAQs that the panels are covered as standard but no mention of batteries. A google search of the topic incredibly doesn’t reveal any information. I don’t want to contact my insurer directly without some background evidence but I also don’t want to find I’m not covered in the event of a claim. Given the rapidly increasing adoption of such systems there is a surprising lack of information - what experiences or insights do you have? Thanks.

DullGreyGuy

Insurance is 95% what the policybook states and 5% where the FOS overrules the policybook and determines what they say is fair (ie it will be something better than the policybook). 

You need to read the definitions of Buildings, Contents, Fixtures & Fittings, these are typically very broad and almost certainly will capture batteries... it wont be as explicit as saying home batteries but neither does it say dishwashers or ovens or knickers explicity but they are all covered.

Secondly look at the perils (flood, fire, theft), these are what the items will be covered for

wiscombe64

Thanks, that makes sense. My gut feeling was that unless it’s raised as a specific question during the application process then it is treated the same as any other appliance/ equipment. On the other hand it is a relatively new area and maybe it hasn’t yet been considered separately or specifically by insurers. Presumably if the situation changes they would have to communicate that somehow, even if they don’t know which of their policyholders have them?

DullGreyGuy

wiscombe64 said:

Thanks, that makes sense. My gut feeling was that unless it’s raised as a specific question during the application process then it is treated the same as any other appliance/ equipment. On the other hand it is a relatively new area and maybe it hasn’t yet been considered separately or specifically by insurers. Presumably if the situation changes they would have to communicate that somehow, even if they don’t know which of their policyholders have them?

Insurance is very reactionary so if it changes it only tends to be after a series of claims and then they can only change it at renewal at which point they have to provide with a list of the main changes to you with your renewal quote and a full policybook. Now there is the question of if you read these documents or not, which is where some come unstuck, but they cannot change it mid policy.

For example my last client did shipping and has several large claims from EV vehicles catching fire on the ship causing damage to other cargo etc and so they decided to no longer offer insurance to those transporting EV cars but they are still in their brown trousers whilst the existing policies run off per https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/26/cargo-ship-fire-off-dutch-coast 

wiscombe64

Thanks again for the feedback. Point taken about reading the big and small print.

In the case of your last client, presumably the fact that EVs were on the ship was transparent to them when they originally provided cover? The perceived risk increased so they subsequently ceased future cover. My point / concern with home batteries is that their presence in a house is not established by insurers prior to providing cover. We are assuming that because they are not explicitly excluded that they must be covered.

Am I right in thinking that is a generic position, if any item / use condition etc. is not explicitly excluded then it’s covered? Obviously if data subsequently suggests an increased risk, that item may become excluded or result in increased premiums etc. Tumble dryers were in the press in recent years regarding fires but I’m not aware of an insurance impact?

user1977

wiscombe64 said:

Am I right in thinking that is a generic position, if any item / use condition etc. is not explicitly excluded then it’s covered?

How else could it possibly work? Policies would have to list every single type of item you might have in a house.

CSI_Yorkshire

wiscombe64 said:

 We are assuming that because they are not explicitly excluded that they must be covered.

They almost certainly are.  That's how it works.

wiscombe64 said:

Obviously if data subsequently suggests an increased risk, that item may become excluded or result in increased premiums etc. Tumble dryers were in the press in recent years regarding fires but I’m not aware of an insurance impact?

Correct - but only when it's worth making a change.  Extremely common items (like a tumble dryer) will just be assumed to be everywhere and part of the general risk profile, therefore part of the standard cost.

wiscombe64

user1977 said:

wiscombe64 said:

Am I right in thinking that is a generic position, if any item / use condition etc. is not explicitly excluded then it’s covered?

How else could it possibly work? Policies would have to list every single type of item you might have in a house.

Yes, I get that sounds obvious but….. Surely the risk of different fixtures / contents varies massively and the vast majority are undeclared to insurers. As an extreme example, what if I collect unexploded WW2 bombs? The insurer doesn’t ask me and when I’m on holiday one destroys my house, presumably I am covered?

I’m not an insurance expert (clearly) but I’m sort of surprised that there aren’t more difficult questions about potential risks which are not explicitly excluded.

DullGreyGuy

wiscombe64 said:

In the case of your last client, presumably the fact that EVs were on the ship was transparent to them when they originally provided cover? The perceived risk increased so they subsequently ceased future cover. My point / concern with home batteries is that their presence in a house is not established by insurers prior to providing cover. We are assuming that because they are not explicitly excluded that they must be covered.

Am I right in thinking that is a generic position, if any item / use condition etc. is not explicitly excluded then it’s covered? Obviously if data subsequently suggests an increased risk, that item may become excluded or result in increased premiums etc. Tumble dryers were in the press in recent years regarding fires but I’m not aware of an insurance impact?

Large commercial insurance is different but no for their annual policies, its likely initially that they only knew that they would be transporting vehicles. Then claims started to happen so they started asking Qs and then more claims happened and they could analyse it better because they now know the rate of claims better as before they could only tell -v- all car transporters. Single trip policies are different as they can at times have a full manifest of the contents but that tends to be more container ships than specialist craft for cars or oil etc.

It was therefore at the same place as home insurers at the time... knew it was carry cars but no idea if its EVs or not. Likewise your home insurers know you have a brick built home and can probably guess you've got a few beds etc in there but its covered by blanket terms. If someone starts to think there may be a trend in claims then they'll have to do analysis, normally this has to start with gathering more data at quote stage. 

If it falls with the three definitions mentioned then its covered unless explicitly excluded. Those definitions tend to be exceptionally broad and I'd be highly surprised if it didnt get captured by one of them.. the biggest risk it wouldnt is if you've got it attached to the outside of a wooden shed or such. 

Yes, if data shows an increase in risk they will make a commercial decision on if to rate for it or not or if to simply exclude cover. Sometimes an insurer will see a weak correlation or a minor change in claims experience but the challenges of asking additional questions at quote stage outweigh the benefit of more accurate pricing. 

For example, other than pre-exising damage the biggest impact on the value of a vehicle its its mileage so there is a school of thought that you should ask the customer the vehicles current mileage as if the car has 1,000 miles on the clock it'll be worth a more than the same car with 130,000 miles and so should pay more premiums but the complexity of getting the customer to go out and check what the mileage in is likely to mean that the customer just abandons the quote and goes elsewhere.

The tumble drier issue was a manufacturing issue, it'd take a brave insurer to exclude damage caused by fires originating from tumble driers when they are so prevalent 

wiscombe64

DullGreyGuy said:

wiscombe64 said:

In the case of your last client, presumably the fact that EVs were on the ship was transparent to them when they originally provided cover? The perceived risk increased so they subsequently ceased future cover. My point / concern with home batteries is that their presence in a house is not established by insurers prior to providing cover. We are assuming that because they are not explicitly excluded that they must be covered.

Am I right in thinking that is a generic position, if any item / use condition etc. is not explicitly excluded then it’s covered? Obviously if data subsequently suggests an increased risk, that item may become excluded or result in increased premiums etc. Tumble dryers were in the press in recent years regarding fires but I’m not aware of an insurance impact?

Large commercial insurance is different but no for their annual policies, its likely initially that they only knew that they would be transporting vehicles. Then claims started to happen so they started asking Qs and then more claims happened and they could analyse it better because they now know the rate of claims better as before they could only tell -v- all car transporters. Single trip policies are different as they can at times have a full manifest of the contents but that tends to be more container ships than specialist craft for cars or oil etc.

It was therefore at the same place as home insurers at the time... knew it was carry cars but no idea if its EVs or not. Likewise your home insurers know you have a brick built home and can probably guess you've got a few beds etc in there but its covered by blanket terms. If someone starts to think there may be a trend in claims then they'll have to do analysis, normally this has to start with gathering more data at quote stage. 

If it falls with the three definitions mentioned then its covered unless explicitly excluded. Those definitions tend to be exceptionally broad and I'd be highly surprised if it didnt get captured by one of them.. the biggest risk it wouldnt is if you've got it attached to the outside of a wooden shed or such. 

Yes, if data shows an increase in risk they will make a commercial decision on if to rate for it or not or if to simply exclude cover. Sometimes an insurer will see a weak correlation or a minor change in claims experience but the challenges of asking additional questions at quote stage outweigh the benefit of more accurate pricing. 

For example, other than pre-exising damage the biggest impact on the value of a vehicle its its mileage so there is a school of thought that you should ask the customer the vehicles current mileage as if the car has 1,000 miles on the clock it'll be worth a more than the same car with 130,000 miles and so should pay more premiums but the complexity of getting the customer to go out and check what the mileage in is likely to mean that the customer just abandons the quote and goes elsewhere.

The tumble drier issue was a manufacturing issue, it'd take a brave insurer to exclude damage caused by fires originating from tumble driers when they are so prevalent 

Thanks, that’s helpful. Love what you did here: ‘guess you've got a few beds etc in there but its covered by blanket terms’ 😂😂

user1977

wiscombe64 said:

user1977 said:

wiscombe64 said:

Am I right in thinking that is a generic position, if any item / use condition etc. is not explicitly excluded then it’s covered?

How else could it possibly work? Policies would have to list every single type of item you might have in a house.

Yes, I get that sounds obvious but….. Surely the risk of different fixtures / contents varies massively and the vast majority are undeclared to insurers. As an extreme example, what if I collect unexploded WW2 bombs? The insurer doesn’t ask me and when I’m on holiday one destroys my house, presumably I am covered?

In the case of my own policy, that may well breach the general exception of

"Any liability that arose from, or any loss or damage caused or contributed to by, a deliberate, malicious, illegal or unlawful act, or any criminal act, by you..."

and/or possibly the condition that

"You and your family must maintain your property in a good state of repair and take care to prevent any accidents, loss, damage or injury."