Buildings insurance claim rejected. Bit shocked

sophlouwhit

DullGreyGuy said:

sophlouwhit said:
Defined Peril

Fire, lightning, explosion, aircraft and other aerial devices or articles dropped from them, riot, civil commotion, strikers, locked out workers, persons taking part in labour disturbances, earthquake, storm, flood or escape of water from any tank, apparatus or pipe.

I will have to do a keywork search of what they consider escape of water as no clue and cant see this very obviously

It would normally be at the start of the EoW section, definitions vary significantly for example:

John Lewis

You’re covered against loss or damage that results from water escaping from – or freezing in – washing machines, dishwashers, fridges, freezers, fixed water plumbing systems or fixed heating systems.

Direct Line

Water or oil escaping from fixed water or heating systems

We also cover water or oil escaping from:

> underground drains and pipes

> domestic appliances

> storage tanks

Ecclesiastical 

Escape of water from any tank apparatus or pipe including damage to any water tank apparatus or pipe itself caused by freezing of water

Excluding damage

(i) by water discharged or leaking from an installation of automatic sprinklers

(ii) to any building which is unoccupied

So the first two it would be considered a EoW claim but in the last one it wouldn't. 

Zurich's standard policy states:

Escape of water from any fixed appliance, pipe, tank or fish tank plus damage to these items caused by freezing or forcible and violent bursting

However the section numbers dont align to your quote and so whilst the above wouldn't include a freezer that isn't to say your policy wording would or wouldn't. 

Hi so we havent got a standard zurich product, we are unfortunately shared ownership have no say over insurance and have a 'selet for social housing providers' policy book.
so, under escape for water search i find the following: it is defined up to as a peril - as copied pasted above. all other escape of waters mentioned basically say the same.
i can see under apparatus it is used in the derangement quote of not included and under water escape.
listed as a exclusion again here tho not quoted in the reason for rejecting claim:
. Changes in Environment or Mechanical or Electrical Breakdown loss or damage caused by or consisting of: a) corrosion, erosion, rust, wet or dry rot, shrinkage, evaporation, loss of weight, dampness, mould, dryness, marring, scratching, vermin or insects b) change in temperature, colour, flavour, texture or finish c) mechanical or electrical breakdown or derangement of the particular machine, apparatus or equipment in which such breakdown or derangement occurs but this will not exclude subsequent damage which itself results from a cause not otherwise excluded
but think they are trying to avoid pay out on us saying fridge freezer broke and leaked

BarelySentientAI

sophlouwhit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

sophlouwhit said:
Defined Peril

Fire, lightning, explosion, aircraft and other aerial devices or articles dropped from them, riot, civil commotion, strikers, locked out workers, persons taking part in labour disturbances, earthquake, storm, flood or escape of water from any tank, apparatus or pipe.

I will have to do a keywork search of what they consider escape of water as no clue and cant see this very obviously

It would normally be at the start of the EoW section, definitions vary significantly for example:

John Lewis

You’re covered against loss or damage that results from water escaping from – or freezing in – washing machines, dishwashers, fridges, freezers, fixed water plumbing systems or fixed heating systems.

Direct Line

Water or oil escaping from fixed water or heating systems

We also cover water or oil escaping from:

> underground drains and pipes

> domestic appliances

> storage tanks

Ecclesiastical 

Escape of water from any tank apparatus or pipe including damage to any water tank apparatus or pipe itself caused by freezing of water

Excluding damage

(i) by water discharged or leaking from an installation of automatic sprinklers

(ii) to any building which is unoccupied

So the first two it would be considered a EoW claim but in the last one it wouldn't. 

Zurich's standard policy states:

Escape of water from any fixed appliance, pipe, tank or fish tank plus damage to these items caused by freezing or forcible and violent bursting

However the section numbers dont align to your quote and so whilst the above wouldn't include a freezer that isn't to say your policy wording would or wouldn't. 

Hi so we havent got a standard zurich product, we are unfortunately shared ownership have no say over insurance and have a 'selet for social housing providers' policy book.
so, under escape for water search i find the following: it is defined up to as a peril - as copied pasted above. all other escape of waters mentioned basically say the same.
i can see under apparatus it is used in the derangement quote of not included and under water escape.
listed as a exclusion again here tho not quoted in the reason for rejecting claim:
. Changes in Environment or Mechanical or Electrical Breakdown loss or damage caused by or consisting of: a) corrosion, erosion, rust, wet or dry rot, shrinkage, evaporation, loss of weight, dampness, mould, dryness, marring, scratching, vermin or insects b) change in temperature, colour, flavour, texture or finish c) mechanical or electrical breakdown or derangement of the particular machine, apparatus or equipment in which such breakdown or derangement occurs but this will not exclude subsequent damage which itself results from a cause not otherwise excluded
but think they are trying to avoid pay out on us saying fridge freezer broke and leaked

If you take the wording from the defined peril section then:

"escape of water from any tank, apparatus or pipe."

You're relying on the FF being "apparatus" - not a common term to use for an appliance but I suppose it could apply.

Even then, there is still the reading of the last part of the exclusion.  "this will not exclude subsequent damage which itself results from a cause not otherwise excluded"  Two questions from that.  Is "subsequent damage" only to the apparatus or does it include damage to other things, and is the cause otherwise excluded?

If it only includes damage to the apparatus, well you're not claiming for that anyway so no cover.

If it includes damage to other things, you're then relying on the same "escape of water" wording to decide whether it's excluded or not.

DullGreyGuy

EoW by definition covers the damage by the escape rather than the what caused the escape in the first place unless thats covered under another peril (eg AD if you put a nail through it). Trace & Access also often kicks in here to try and find the source of the leak but still leaves you the job of fixing the leak itself.

sophlouwhit

UPDATE *They have written a apologetic email today and agreed to cover costs of the subfloor,as a way of apology knocking £100 off the excess so all good signed a Very Happy Me

BarelySentientAI

sophlouwhit said:

UPDATE *They have written a apologetic email today and agreed to cover costs of the subfloor,as a way of apology knocking £100 off the excess so all good signed a Very Happy Me

I'm glad it's worked out for you!