Home insurance with a home battery

wiscombe64

user1977 said:

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."

Thanks, I think it’s the ‘May well be’, ‘and / or possibly’ that I’m struggling with! How does one get certainty?

Thanks thanks for all the input guys. I think I’m expecting greater clarity but realise that loosely defined criteria rule here. Feels like there’s too much wriggle room which my cynical self feels won’t go in favour of the little guy. No need for any further response, thanks.

As Douglas Adams wrote, “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” I’m not going to get that so fingers crossed and hope I don’t need to claim.

Aretnap

wiscombe64 said:

user1977 said:

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."

Thanks, I think it’s the ‘May well be’, ‘and / or possibly’ that I’m struggling with! How does one get certainty?

Thanks thanks for all the input guys. I think I’m expecting greater clarity but realise that loosely defined criteria rule here. Feels like there’s too much wriggle room which my cynical self feels won’t go in favour of the little guy. No need for any further response, thanks.

As Douglas Adams wrote, “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” I’m not going to get that so fingers crossed and hope I don’t need to claim.

You can't always get certainty because it is not really possible for the people writing the insurance policy to anticipate every imaginable type of mishap that you might concievably have and explicitly say whether it's covered or not. Especially when you get into obscure and unlikely scenarios like having a house full of unexploded WW2 ordinance. Interest the policy sets down the principles as clearly as possible, and it's ultimately for the Ombudsman (or the courts) to make a judgement call on how to apply them in borderline cases.

However you are protected by the general principle in consumer law that says that when the terms of a consumer contact are unclear, the interpretation which should be used is the one that is more favourable to the consumer. In other words if it's not clear from (a careful reading of) the policy terms whether something is covered, then it's covered.

So in the case of collecting unexploded bombs, it would be for the insurer to point to the specific law that you were breaking by filling your house with explosives if they wanted to decline your claim in those grounds. I would imagine (hope!) that there's such a law, but can't quote an exact piece of legislation off the top of my head.

CSI_Yorkshire

That's not the only general principle that applies though.

To take the unexploded bomb collector - would a reasonable layperson think that such an activity was "taking care to prevent damage".

If the collector had the bombs suspended from strings and swinging around the house, and a penchant for tapping them with a stick for luck, probably not 

If the collector had them in strong metal boxes with locks, away from heat sources etc, they probably would.

Interpretation of wording is always vague because nobody could ever write a document that precisely covered every possible situation.

wiscombe64

CSI_Yorkshire said:

That's not the only general principle that applies though.

To take the unexploded bomb collector - would a reasonable layperson think that such an activity was "taking care to prevent damage".

If the collector had the bombs suspended from strings and swinging around the house, and a penchant for tapping them with a stick for luck, probably not 

If the collector had them in strong metal boxes with locks, away from heat sources etc, they probably would.

Interpretation of wording is always vague because nobody could ever write a document that precisely covered every possible situation.

Surprisingly, the bomb analogy was an extreme example to illustrate the point…..

It’s at one end (or off the end!) of a spectrum of risk isn’t it? My point is it’s unclear to me where the point on the spectrum is where insurers ‘draw the line’ regarding ‘acceptable’. I get that it’s very difficult and therefore the wording is deliberately vague / generic. I am just surprised how few explicitly named exceptions there are to automatically included cover, but if the universal, never excepted rule is that everything is covered unless it’s specifically excluded then I’m fine. But it’s not that is it?

In the unlikely event that my home batteries experience a thermal event, I just have a nagging doubt that my insurer will say that I should have declared them and therefore I’m not covered. 

user1977

wiscombe64 said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

That's not the only general principle that applies though.

To take the unexploded bomb collector - would a reasonable layperson think that such an activity was "taking care to prevent damage".

If the collector had the bombs suspended from strings and swinging around the house, and a penchant for tapping them with a stick for luck, probably not 

If the collector had them in strong metal boxes with locks, away from heat sources etc, they probably would.

Interpretation of wording is always vague because nobody could ever write a document that precisely covered every possible situation.

I am just surprised how few explicitly named exceptions there are to automatically included cover, but if the universal, never excepted rule is that everything is covered unless it’s specifically excluded then I’m fine. But it’s not that is it?

It is, if we're talking about "types of possessions" and aren't going to utterly ludicrous examples.

Aretnap

CSI_Yorkshire said:

That's not the only general principle that applies though.

To take the unexploded bomb collector - would a reasonable layperson think that such an activity was "taking care to prevent damage".

If the collector had the bombs suspended from strings and swinging around the house, and a penchant for tapping them with a stick for luck, probably not 

If the collector had them in strong metal boxes with locks, away from heat sources etc, they probably would.

Interpretation of wording is always vague because nobody could ever write a document that precisely covered every possible situation.

The same principle would apply though if the insurer wanted to exclude damage on the basis of a "taking care to avoid damage" clause - the onus would be on the insurer to prove that the clause applied. They could probably do that in the case of something that any normal person would regard as unreasonably dangerous, like filling your house with unexploded bombs, but installing a standard but if consumer kit like a solar battery (or a tumble drier, as has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread) wouldn't come close to what a reasonable person would see as a failure to take care of the property.

Aretnap

wiscombe64 said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

That's not the only general principle that applies though.

To take the unexploded bomb collector - would a reasonable layperson think that such an activity was "taking care to prevent damage".

If the collector had the bombs suspended from strings and swinging around the house, and a penchant for tapping them with a stick for luck, probably not 

If the collector had them in strong metal boxes with locks, away from heat sources etc, they probably would.

Interpretation of wording is always vague because nobody could ever write a document that precisely covered every possible situation.

Surprisingly, the bomb analogy was an extreme example to illustrate the point…..

It’s at one end (or off the end!) of a spectrum of risk isn’t it? My point is it’s unclear to me where the point on the spectrum is where insurers ‘draw the line’ regarding ‘acceptable’. I get that it’s very difficult and therefore the wording is deliberately vague / generic. I am just surprised how few explicitly named exceptions there are to automatically included cover, but if the universal, never excepted rule is that everything is covered unless it’s specifically excluded then I’m fine. But it’s not that is it?

In the unlikely event that my home batteries experience a thermal event, I just have a nagging doubt that my insurer will say that I should have declared them and therefore I’m not covered. 

The bottom line is that if your insurer did say that you should have declared them, your response would be to ask "where on the proposal form did you ask if I had installed solar batteries?" If they couldn't answer, you would have an easy win at the Ombudsman or in court, in the unlikely event that they were silly enough to refuse the claim.

As a consumer you have no obligation to second guess what things you might need to declare to an insurance company - if the insurer wants to know something the duty is on them to ask you about it when you take out the policy. Which can mean asking a specific question, or can mean asking you to tick a box saying that a list of assumptions is correct, but if they don't do either then they would have no grounds to complain that you didn't tell them about your solar battery.

DullGreyGuy

wiscombe64 said:

user1977 said:

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."

Thanks, I think it’s the ‘May well be’, ‘and / or possibly’ that I’m struggling with! How does one get certainty?

Either by asking pointed questions up front or relying on how the law deals with ambiguity 

As said above, you cannot predict all scenarios but there are legal principles around proximal cause etc. The classic one is if there is an earthquake and it fractures the gas line which then ignites causing damage to a property is the cause of damage Earthquake or Fire?

They get more complex in the real world though, my current client had a claim (in the US) where a hurricane brought with it heavy rain, the rain caused localised flooding and high humidity levels, the flooding took out the electricity supply. The insured owned a factory, it was not damaged by the winds, rain or flooding however sustained notable damage to stock from mould because without electricity the AC/dehumidifiers weren't working. Mould damage is explicitly excluded from the policy. 

With your bomb collector, if they had a lawful reason to have them and were taking reasonable precautions on how they were stored there is no reason why home insurance wouldnt cover it. The only real question will be if the "reasonable care" should be judged against what a lay person would think or given the specialist nature, if there should be a higher bar of what an explosives expert thinks. It may be a moot point as the law allowing them to keep the bombs may specify how they are stored and if they didn't follow that they would be unlawful anyway. 

wiscombe64

Aretnap said:

The bottom line is that if your insurer did say that you should have declared them, your response would be to ask "where on the proposal form did you ask if I had installed solar batteries?" If they couldn't answer, you would have an easy win at the Ombudsman or in court, in the unlikely event that they were silly enough to refuse the claim.

As a consumer you have no obligation to second guess what things you might need to declare to an insurance company - if the insurer wants to know something the duty is on them to ask you about it when you take out the policy. Which can mean asking a specific question, or can mean asking you to tick a box saying that a list of assumptions is correct, but if they don't do either then they would have no grounds to complain that you didn't tell them about your solar battery.

Thanks, this was my initial ‘gut feeling’ but I wasn’t sure. Your explanation is very helpful, Cheers.

Slinky

Aretnap said:

wiscombe64 said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

That's not the only general principle that applies though.

To take the unexploded bomb collector - would a reasonable layperson think that such an activity was "taking care to prevent damage".

If the collector had the bombs suspended from strings and swinging around the house, and a penchant for tapping them with a stick for luck, probably not 

If the collector had them in strong metal boxes with locks, away from heat sources etc, they probably would.

Interpretation of wording is always vague because nobody could ever write a document that precisely covered every possible situation.

Surprisingly, the bomb analogy was an extreme example to illustrate the point…..

It’s at one end (or off the end!) of a spectrum of risk isn’t it? My point is it’s unclear to me where the point on the spectrum is where insurers ‘draw the line’ regarding ‘acceptable’. I get that it’s very difficult and therefore the wording is deliberately vague / generic. I am just surprised how few explicitly named exceptions there are to automatically included cover, but if the universal, never excepted rule is that everything is covered unless it’s specifically excluded then I’m fine. But it’s not that is it?

In the unlikely event that my home batteries experience a thermal event, I just have a nagging doubt that my insurer will say that I should have declared them and therefore I’m not covered. 

The bottom line is that if your insurer did say that you should have declared them, your response would be to ask "where on the proposal form did you ask if I had installed solar batteries?" If they couldn't answer, you would have an easy win at the Ombudsman or in court, in the unlikely event that they were silly enough to refuse the claim.

As a consumer you have no obligation to second guess what things you might need to declare to an insurance company - if the insurer wants to know something the duty is on them to ask you about it when you take out the policy. Which can mean asking a specific question, or can mean asking you to tick a box saying that a list of assumptions is correct, but if they don't do either then they would have no grounds to complain that you didn't tell them about your solar battery.

I have an interest in this thread having recently had panels and batteries installed.  Problem is I can't remember whether the insurer asked about solar panels and batteries on the proposal as I didn't have them then. I think I may contact them anyway just to inform them. There's also the issue of an extra £12K of rebuild costs to think about.