House insurance flood exclusions

Luke451

Hello,

I'm looking at my beautiful insurance, and in the flood exclusions I found these exclusions:

1. "Loss or damage caused by subsidence, heave or landslip resulting from storm or flood".

My lawyer career is quite in the beginning , but I understand that if the flood causes one of the things above, then my insurance will pay 0! Is it right?

I mean, storms can cause any of these things...

2. In the case of subsidence instead, it doesn't cover the following: "settlement, that is when the soil changes volume, or after a shrinkage or ground being compacted".

Even this one sounds crazy to me...

3. About storm or flood, exceptions for "Loss or damage caused by gradually rising ground-water levels".

Really? What if I'm not there when it happens and the water level increased in about 7 days???

If I can mention the company, I'll do it, so you can verify the same, it's quite incredible to me...

DullGreyGuy

You can name companies and even better provide a link to the policy book so the clauses can be read in context. 

1. Its a bit difficult to workout where in the book you are looking at this one but it sounds like it is saying the damage would be covered but it would be claimed under the Subsidence section not the Flood or Storm. This section tends to have a higher excess than the rest of the policy.

2. Settlement is just something that happens to some buildings, a forum regular here says its a twice annual exercise to patch the cracks in their sprawling property as the soil type and construction just means its prone to the changes in ground moisture. It'd be uneconomical to make 2 sets of claims every year even if it was covered.

Have to remember that insurance is about covering sudden unexpected events, its not a maintenance contract to deal with the basic efforts of owning a home.

3. Suspect they are thinking over a longer time period... this sort of thing typically happens when someone builds a damn or such near by meaning the water table rises in the area. This is normally measured in months if not years. 

Luke451

DullGreyGuy said:

You can name companies and even better provide a link to the policy book so the clauses can be read in context. 

1. Its a bit difficult to workout where in the book you are looking at this one but it sounds like it is saying the damage would be covered but it would be claimed under the Subsidence section not the Flood or Storm. This section tends to have a higher excess than the rest of the policy.

2. Settlement is just something that happens to some buildings, a forum regular here says its a twice annual exercise to patch the cracks in their sprawling property as the soil type and construction just means its prone to the changes in ground moisture. It'd be uneconomical to make 2 sets of claims every year even if it was covered.

Have to remember that insurance is about covering sudden unexpected events, its not a maintenance contract to deal with the basic efforts of owning a home.

3. Suspect they are thinking over a longer time period... this sort of thing typically happens when someone builds a damn or such near by meaning the water table rises in the area. This is normally measured in months if not years. 

Thank you, it's Admiral, but also AXA has similar wording.

https://www.admiral.com/existing-customers/policy-documents.php

https://www.axa.co.uk/home-insurance/policy-details/

Both seem do not cover terrain settlement, shrinkage, expansion, increase of Radon gas (connected to earthquakes and some other event).

The main concern is not only to lose my equity, but that I need to keep paying the mortgage until it doesn't end + rent somewhere else etc...

This scenario could also invalidate the rent cover that I have, it's 100 or 150k... So they say: this situation is not covered, therefore the rent protection doesn't apply as a consequence....

HORRIBLE situation...

Luke451

DullGreyGuy said:

You can name companies and even better provide a link to the policy book so the clauses can be read in context. 

1. Its a bit difficult to workout where in the book you are looking at this one but it sounds like it is saying the damage would be covered but it would be claimed under the Subsidence section not the Flood or Storm. This section tends to have a higher excess than the rest of the policy.

2. Settlement is just something that happens to some buildings, a forum regular here says its a twice annual exercise to patch the cracks in their sprawling property as the soil type and construction just means its prone to the changes in ground moisture. It'd be uneconomical to make 2 sets of claims every year even if it was covered.

Have to remember that insurance is about covering sudden unexpected events, its not a maintenance contract to deal with the basic efforts of owning a home.

3. Suspect they are thinking over a longer time period... this sort of thing typically happens when someone builds a damn or such near by meaning the water table rises in the area. This is normally measured in months if not years. 

Hi, do you know anything on what I mentioned above?

chanz4

means they will pay £0 out, find a decent insurance provider that will include as reason excluded on the property area

DullGreyGuy

Luke451 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

You can name companies and even better provide a link to the policy book so the clauses can be read in context. 

1. Its a bit difficult to workout where in the book you are looking at this one but it sounds like it is saying the damage would be covered but it would be claimed under the Subsidence section not the Flood or Storm. This section tends to have a higher excess than the rest of the policy.

2. Settlement is just something that happens to some buildings, a forum regular here says its a twice annual exercise to patch the cracks in their sprawling property as the soil type and construction just means its prone to the changes in ground moisture. It'd be uneconomical to make 2 sets of claims every year even if it was covered.

Have to remember that insurance is about covering sudden unexpected events, its not a maintenance contract to deal with the basic efforts of owning a home.

3. Suspect they are thinking over a longer time period... this sort of thing typically happens when someone builds a damn or such near by meaning the water table rises in the area. This is normally measured in months if not years. 

Both seem do not cover terrain settlement, shrinkage, expansion, increase of Radon gas (connected to earthquakes and some other event).

The main concern is not only to lose my equity, but that I need to keep paying the mortgage until it doesn't end + rent somewhere else etc...

This scenario could also invalidate the rent cover that I have, it's 100 or 150k... So they say: this situation is not covered, therefore the rent protection doesn't apply as a consequence....

HORRIBLE situation...

The word "radon" doesn't appear in either of the company's basic policies in their current form so it's a little difficult to consider/give an opinion on. 

Insurance is about covering future unpredictable events, it's not a maintenance contract to deal with the annual effect of the seasons or the inevitable impact of time on all materials or the fact that new buildings settle over a number of years. For these types of things there are warranties and maintenance contracts.

There are elements that are excluded under standard Home insurance that could cause loss of equity that are unpredictable like War and Revolution however if we are in a state of war and UK homes are getting bombed I'd suggest there are much bigger problems than just your home equity. There is also previous history of the government forming funds to reimburse those whose properties were damaged in WWII etc. 

theartfullodger

If unhappy buy a different policy with fewer exclusions, (obvs..).

Or stick with the current one then if claiming for flood (very timely subject), and they don't pay out for what you think they should, sue for unfair terms.

Good luck with that.....

Luke451

Thanks everyone, I got somethign to work on.

But do I still need to pay the mortgage even if the property has gone down the sea, right?

I have no idea how I would come out alive from such expense in future, especially in old age...

Luke451

----------

DullGreyGuy

Luke451 said:

Thanks everyone, I got somethign to work on.

But do I still need to pay the mortgage even if the property has gone down the sea, right?

I have no idea how I would come out alive from such expense in future, especially in old age...

In principle, though most will let the bank reposes it and potentially become bankrupt 

In reality, if you are talking a coastal cliff home on unstable cliffs then you probably won't have a mortgage as its a known issue and likely "when" not "if". A property which cannot be mortgaged will always be much cheaper

Luke451

DullGreyGuy said:

Luke451 said:

Thanks everyone, I got somethign to work on.

But do I still need to pay the mortgage even if the property has gone down the sea, right?

I have no idea how I would come out alive from such expense in future, especially in old age...

In principle, though most will let the bank reposes it and potentially become bankrupt 

In reality, if you are talking a coastal cliff home on unstable cliffs then you probably won't have a mortgage as its a known issue and likely "when" not "if". A property which cannot be mortgaged will always be much cheaper

Do you mean "reposses the terrain"?