Benefit of Accidental damage on Buildings Insurance

Essex_Jim

I am coming up to my Building and Contents Insurance renewal. We were with More Than which has now moved to Admiral. I am working around the comparisons sites at present.

Basic reason I have insurance is for the worse case and we need to rebuild. I don’t take accidental cover as I have felt for what we cover the excess would cover the replacement costs. One question I do have, should I take accidental cover on buildings? I assume there could be situations where due to an accident by the occupants where the house could need extensive / full rebuilds?

I would welcome peoples thoughts. 

Thanks.

DullGreyGuy

Essex_Jim said:

I am coming up to my Building and Contents Insurance renewal. We were with More Than which has now moved to Admiral. I am working around the comparisons sites at present.

Basic reason I have insurance is for the worse case and we need to rebuild. I don’t take accidental cover as I have felt for what we cover the excess would cover the replacement costs. One question I do have, should I take accidental cover on buildings? I assume there could be situations where due to an accident by the occupants where the house could need extensive / full rebuilds?

I would welcome peoples thoughts. 

In principle you could accidentally blow up your home. There are some more edge cases where you have an issue with the roof but that isnt "storm damage", with some insurers they won't cover the damage to the roof as it wasnt an insured peril but will cover the resultant damage under the AD section for the damage the water ingress causes. 

Its likely that AD is often much lower than a full rebuild however if you have Matching Set cover and say an expensive kitchen a small amount of damage can cause a very large bill if the doors to your kitchen are no longer made etc. Obviously to some it'll just match the damage on the door next to it rather than require a full new kitchen. 

Essex_Jim

Thanks @DullGreyGuy. Much appreciated. I think I will add accidental damage as it does seem to be a small additional cost

DullGreyGuy

It also removes questions...

In a claim you have to prove that the "cause" was an insured peril, if you live in parts of the US getting earthquake cover is really expensive and so most people dont. A lot of damage however is caused by fire because the earthquake ruptures mains gas pipes which then ignite. So is the proximal cause the earthquake or fire? You can by "Fire Following" cover in the US to remove the question. 

Dont have earthquakes here but you could accidentally leave a gas tap on if your hob is defective so similarly it could be a question of if its an accident or if its fire. Having cover for AD makes the Q broadly irrelevant. 

Essex_Jim

Exactly my thinking. Removes the question and also the opportunity to avoid paying out