AVIVA Home Insurance, new FLOOD EXCLUSIONS

DullGreyGuy

Jack199 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Jack199 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Jack199 said:

AVIVA have notified me of the following new exclusions, due upon my January 2025 renewal, which in my view gives them an easy way to refuse a flood claim. I wonder whether others are seeing this type of wording and are concerned by the implications?

“Flood: – Loss or damage caused by rising water table levels (the level below which the ground is completely saturated with water), which happens gradually over a period of time.”

I have written the following to AVIVA.

1. This is poorly worded.
2. I ‘believe’ you are NOT saying rising water table levels CAUSE Loss/Damage due to flooding, but contribute to the possibility. PLEASE EXPLAIN MORE CLEARLY what you mean by this wording.
3. MOST CONCERNING is the entirely arbitrary phrase “rising water table levels” since it does not define the threshold for the quantity of rising, nor how that value is arrived at (since I presume it would require a physical measure to be taken after a flood event, which may itself have been impacted by a big flood, compared to some point in the past). This seems like a devious way to NEVER pay ANY flood claims, by invoking this vaguely defined exclusion. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE METHODOLOGY AVIVA will use if a flood event occurs.
4. It may even be that customers are already in a position where AVIVA will never pay out for flooding, but customers have no way of knowing because, who knows their property’s water table situation?!

“Storm or flood: – Loss or damage caused by subsidence, heave or landslip.”

1. Again, poorly worded.
2. I ‘believe’ AVIVA means that what is being excluded is Storm or Flood "Loss or damage where PRE-EXISTING Subsidence, Heave" have contributed to the loss/damage when a storm or flood occurred. PLEASE EXPLAIN MORE CLEARLY what you mean by this wording and where, in relation to the insured property, this subsidence/heave would be located for it to be deemed, in AVIVA’s view, an aggravating factor, and what degree of subsidence/heave is considered consequential?
3. Again, following a flood event, which may itself impact the ground situation (ie, subsidence/heave), how will you assess the pre-event ground situation?  PLEASE EXPLAIN THE METHODOLOGY AVIVA will use if a flood event occurs.
4. Again, it may even be that customers are already in a position where AVIVA will never pay out for flooding, if there is subsidence/heave which customers are unaware of!

Do you have a link to the document online? Or can you post an image of the document (obviously with no personal details showing)?

The tiny snippets have no meaning without seeing them in the context of the whole document. The second one, for example, looks like an exception to the Flood/Storm section to say that you cannot claim that flood caused subsidence. That isn't to say that subsidence is excluded just that it will be considered under the subsidence section rather than the flood section which would mean paying the higher subsidence excess.

Here is an image of page 17 of the Policy Document.

So Insurance policy wording (PDF 348 KB)

If we take the second one first... this is a section level exclusion. If there is very heavy rain etc and it causes a landslide that goes into the side of your house and damages it. What this clause is saying is that you cannot claim for the damage under the Storm/Flood section of the policy despite that arguably being the proximal cause. Instead you would need to claim for the damage under the Subsidence, Heave and Landslip section of the policy which typically will have a higher excess than the the Storm and Flood sections. 


It is common for Home Insurance to exclude rising water table, it's a long term problem with no easy fix. The fact they have had gradually to it actually makes it potentially easier to get a claim through as a one off storm causing the water to raise from the ground won't typically be considered gradual. 

Source of the water is typically found by testing for nitrates, surface water flooding will typically be low to none whereas water that have come up out the ground it will be much higher.

Thanks for your very helpful reply.

The definitions section of AVIVA’s policy book states “Flood - A substantial volume of water suddenly entering your Buildings from an external source at ground floor level or below.”
The Buildings section (p15) states cover is provided for damage caused by “Storm or Flood” and by “Subsidence, heave, or landslip”.
The new exclusion which we are discussing: Under “Storm or Flood:
- Loss or damage caused by subsidence, heave or landslip
- Loss or damage caused by rising water table levels (the level below which the ground is completely saturated with water), which happens gradually over a period of time.”

One can sustain damage separately from any of these 5 causes. However, now Storm and Flood have been connected to subsidence, heave and landslip, but why is subsidence cover excluded in relation to “water suddenly entering your Buildings from an external source”, ie a Flood? I understand that the subsidence, heave, or landslip are still separately covered, but now, under this new exclusion, 2 events are being linked, leaving me unclear as to the methodology AVIVA will use to determine whether cover will be denied.

Regarding rising water table, your suggestion about new flood defences and the designation of land for flood plain is a scenario which makes sense, but AVIVA’s wording is a world away from this, and unhelpfully vague, allowing them to interpret their words as they choose. Just one of several holes in this wording is “where?” – ie flood cover is excluded if there is “rising water table levels” (a) under my property?, (b) 1 mile away?, (c) 10 miles away?,… who knows what AVIVA means? (I know water finds its own level, but some properties may be on an elevated position such that a rising water table is still far below the property). This exclusion is full of definitional holes and I believe is wide open to misuse!

The big issue for me is that this new wording is having to be interpreted by customers, when its meaning should be made abundantly clear by the vendor. I really need to receive AVIVA’s official statement, if they will provide one. I have written to them.

Yes, they want to define flood as an external source because if you had a burst pipe in your home most would also say "their house was flooded" but again there is a separate section of cover for Escape of Water which again typically has a higher Excess than Flood but lower than Subsidence.

The "new exclusion" of subsidence under Flood isn't an exclusion, it's a clarification that it will be dealt with as Subsidence and not Flood. 

The ground water item is an actual exclusion because there isn't another peril it can be linked to however Aviva have explicitly stated it is a gradual. Without doubt there was already an exclusion for gradual action prior to this year as I've never seen an insurance policy that doesn't state so and therefore really it's a clarification rather than new exclusion. 

By definition of groundwater it has to be in your property. If the water table rises a mile from your home you won't get ground water coming up from the ground into your basement. You may get more surface water flooding but they haven't excluded surface water only ground water. 


On unclear policy wordings the ombudsman is very clear, if a customer makes a reasonable assumption of what the wording means then thats how the ombudsman will apply it even if it's not what the insurer had intended. "Reasonable" will mean someone who as read the policy book properly and considered any defined terms. Whilst it arguably it would be better if no complaint ever had to go to the ombudsman vague wording can work in a customer's favour. Its typically challenges to vague wordings that result in changes to policy wordings. It wouldn't be too surprising to find an Ombudsman decision that a flood or storm that caused a landslide had to be dealt with under the Flood/Storm section has lead to them adding the clarification that landslide will always be dealt with under landslide even if the cause is flood or storm. 

Jack199

DullGreyGuy said:

Jack199 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Jack199 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Jack199 said:

AVIVA have notified me of the following new exclusions, due upon my January 2025 renewal, which in my view gives them an easy way to refuse a flood claim. I wonder whether others are seeing this type of wording and are concerned by the implications?

“Flood: – Loss or damage caused by rising water table levels (the level below which the ground is completely saturated with water), which happens gradually over a period of time.”

I have written the following to AVIVA.

1. This is poorly worded.
2. I ‘believe’ you are NOT saying rising water table levels CAUSE Loss/Damage due to flooding, but contribute to the possibility. PLEASE EXPLAIN MORE CLEARLY what you mean by this wording.
3. MOST CONCERNING is the entirely arbitrary phrase “rising water table levels” since it does not define the threshold for the quantity of rising, nor how that value is arrived at (since I presume it would require a physical measure to be taken after a flood event, which may itself have been impacted by a big flood, compared to some point in the past). This seems like a devious way to NEVER pay ANY flood claims, by invoking this vaguely defined exclusion. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE METHODOLOGY AVIVA will use if a flood event occurs.
4. It may even be that customers are already in a position where AVIVA will never pay out for flooding, but customers have no way of knowing because, who knows their property’s water table situation?!

“Storm or flood: – Loss or damage caused by subsidence, heave or landslip.”

1. Again, poorly worded.
2. I ‘believe’ AVIVA means that what is being excluded is Storm or Flood "Loss or damage where PRE-EXISTING Subsidence, Heave" have contributed to the loss/damage when a storm or flood occurred. PLEASE EXPLAIN MORE CLEARLY what you mean by this wording and where, in relation to the insured property, this subsidence/heave would be located for it to be deemed, in AVIVA’s view, an aggravating factor, and what degree of subsidence/heave is considered consequential?
3. Again, following a flood event, which may itself impact the ground situation (ie, subsidence/heave), how will you assess the pre-event ground situation?  PLEASE EXPLAIN THE METHODOLOGY AVIVA will use if a flood event occurs.
4. Again, it may even be that customers are already in a position where AVIVA will never pay out for flooding, if there is subsidence/heave which customers are unaware of!

Do you have a link to the document online? Or can you post an image of the document (obviously with no personal details showing)?

The tiny snippets have no meaning without seeing them in the context of the whole document. The second one, for example, looks like an exception to the Flood/Storm section to say that you cannot claim that flood caused subsidence. That isn't to say that subsidence is excluded just that it will be considered under the subsidence section rather than the flood section which would mean paying the higher subsidence excess.

Here is an image of page 17 of the Policy Document.

So Insurance policy wording (PDF 348 KB)

If we take the second one first... this is a section level exclusion. If there is very heavy rain etc and it causes a landslide that goes into the side of your house and damages it. What this clause is saying is that you cannot claim for the damage under the Storm/Flood section of the policy despite that arguably being the proximal cause. Instead you would need to claim for the damage under the Subsidence, Heave and Landslip section of the policy which typically will have a higher excess than the the Storm and Flood sections. 


It is common for Home Insurance to exclude rising water table, it's a long term problem with no easy fix. The fact they have had gradually to it actually makes it potentially easier to get a claim through as a one off storm causing the water to raise from the ground won't typically be considered gradual. 

Source of the water is typically found by testing for nitrates, surface water flooding will typically be low to none whereas water that have come up out the ground it will be much higher.

Thanks for your very helpful reply.

The definitions section of AVIVA’s policy book states “Flood - A substantial volume of water suddenly entering your Buildings from an external source at ground floor level or below.”
The Buildings section (p15) states cover is provided for damage caused by “Storm or Flood” and by “Subsidence, heave, or landslip”.
The new exclusion which we are discussing: Under “Storm or Flood:
- Loss or damage caused by subsidence, heave or landslip
- Loss or damage caused by rising water table levels (the level below which the ground is completely saturated with water), which happens gradually over a period of time.”

One can sustain damage separately from any of these 5 causes. However, now Storm and Flood have been connected to subsidence, heave and landslip, but why is subsidence cover excluded in relation to “water suddenly entering your Buildings from an external source”, ie a Flood? I understand that the subsidence, heave, or landslip are still separately covered, but now, under this new exclusion, 2 events are being linked, leaving me unclear as to the methodology AVIVA will use to determine whether cover will be denied.

Regarding rising water table, your suggestion about new flood defences and the designation of land for flood plain is a scenario which makes sense, but AVIVA’s wording is a world away from this, and unhelpfully vague, allowing them to interpret their words as they choose. Just one of several holes in this wording is “where?” – ie flood cover is excluded if there is “rising water table levels” (a) under my property?, (b) 1 mile away?, (c) 10 miles away?,… who knows what AVIVA means? (I know water finds its own level, but some properties may be on an elevated position such that a rising water table is still far below the property). This exclusion is full of definitional holes and I believe is wide open to misuse!

The big issue for me is that this new wording is having to be interpreted by customers, when its meaning should be made abundantly clear by the vendor. I really need to receive AVIVA’s official statement, if they will provide one. I have written to them.

Yes, they want to define flood as an external source because if you had a burst pipe in your home most would also say "their house was flooded" but again there is a separate section of cover for Escape of Water which again typically has a higher Excess than Flood but lower than Subsidence.

The "new exclusion" of subsidence under Flood isn't an exclusion, it's a clarification that it will be dealt with as Subsidence and not Flood. 

The ground water item is an actual exclusion because there isn't another peril it can be linked to however Aviva have explicitly stated it is a gradual. Without doubt there was already an exclusion for gradual action prior to this year as I've never seen an insurance policy that doesn't state so and therefore really it's a clarification rather than new exclusion. 

By definition of groundwater it has to be in your property. If the water table rises a mile from your home you won't get ground water coming up from the ground into your basement. You may get more surface water flooding but they haven't excluded surface water only ground water. 


On unclear policy wordings the ombudsman is very clear, if a customer makes a reasonable assumption of what the wording means then thats how the ombudsman will apply it even if it's not what the insurer had intended. "Reasonable" will mean someone who as read the policy book properly and considered any defined terms. Whilst it arguably it would be better if no complaint ever had to go to the ombudsman vague wording can work in a customer's favour. Its typically challenges to vague wordings that result in changes to policy wordings. It wouldn't be too surprising to find an Ombudsman decision that a flood or storm that caused a landslide had to be dealt with under the Flood/Storm section has lead to them adding the clarification that landslide will always be dealt with under landslide even if the cause is flood or storm. 

Many thanks - this is really useful input. However, "rising water table levels" (plural) still makes me think they are defining this more widely than solely beneath the insured property because "level" (singular) would suffice for it to clearly apply only to that property. WDYT?

DullGreyGuy

There can be multiple levels under a single (large) property. If you look at the cross section diagrams on wikipedia's article it shows both a sloped water level and a purched water table

Jack199

Thank you.