Insurer won't pay for chimney rebuild following a fire - are they right?

Litbycandles

Hi, 
Looking for a bit of advice about the actions of our loss adjuster and underwriter regarding the removal and rebuild of a chimney.

Following a fire at our house which destroyed the roof and wrecked the first floor rooms, the underwriter has accepted liability and has sent a surveyor and a structural engineer. 

Both have said one of the chimneys is potentially dangerous and needs to be removed. The loss adjuster agreed and says Aviva, the underwriter, will pay for the removal and 50% of the rebuild costs. We pay the other 50%.

They maintain the chimney was leaning prior to the fire so because it's a pre-existing condition, we're responsible for half the rebuild cost. 

The rationale for this is the structural engineer's opinion which, and I quote, is as follows:

- One of the four chimneys is in a precarious condition following complete loss of the roof.

- This chimney (chimney No: 2) is located above the middle bedroom and is clearly leaning from the vertical

- It is not possible to determine the root cause of this movement at this time

- It is also not possible to confirm if the movement preceded the fire event, or if it was caused by the event

- On the balance of probability however, it is very likely that if the movement did precede the event, then the fire may have caused further movement
 
The engineer's opinion seems inconclusive, and cannot definitively establish that there was a pre-existing lean, what has caused it to lean now, or if the lean has contributed to the current condition. There is also no detail on what is actually wrong with the chimney, other than saying it's precarious, 

I feel like an underwriter needs a bit more evidence than the above if they expect us to foot 50% of a job they want to undertake. If the chimney was made precarious by the fire then surely it's up to the insurance to cover the costs?

Hope you can help me make sense of this. It might not be a battle worth fighting but I want to make sure I'm picking the right battles to fight! 

Thanks! 

Annemos

How horrid after you have been through this!  


I am not an Expert on this, so please wait for others to respond. (Mine was a Subsidence Claim.)

But something that has sprung into my mind, is that Repairs must be Lasting and Effective. 


Please see the attached below:   In the Section lower down the page on "Repairing the Damage: Buildings: Effective and Lasting" 

It goes on the discuss if "Work on Damage that isn't insured" is necessary to be carried out or preferable. (It must be deemed necessary.)


I am wondering if there is a position that you can take, that would say if Chimney 2 is NOT repaired properly and put straight, then the Rest of the Repairs to the Remainder of the Roof and also Inside would NOT be Lasting and Effective?   Therefore, ALL the problems with Chimney 2 must be paid for by the Insurance Company, to ensure that all the other repairs are Lasting and Effective. 

But I am also wondering  ....   would you need to employ your own Structural Engineer, to write a report saying this is the case?  All the reasons why Chimney 2 might fall down on the other Roof Repairs etc etc.   The Ombudsman requires us to have our own Technical Expert to provide Evidence to them. Then they will weigh up both lines of argument and decide which seems more reasonable. (You might also ask for that Report to be reimbursed to you!) 

So, with this approach, not only would you be saying that their Structural Engineer does not actually have any proof that the chimney was leaning before the fire  ..... furthermore you would also be stating that if they do not fix it, then the rest of the repairs will not be Lasting and Effective!



https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/insurance/home-buildings-insurance/settling-home-insurance-claims

In some cases, the only way to carry out an effective and lasting repair to the insured damage is to carry out work on damage that isn't insured. If that work isn’t carried out, it won’t be possible for the insured work to be effective and lasting – and that won’t indemnify the policyholder.

In this situation we think the insurer should carry out that uninsured work. Again, this doesn’t need to be written in the policy – we think it’s the fair approach to ensure that the customer is indemnified.

But we must be satisfied that the uninsured work is necessary for an effective and lasting repair to the insured work. Sometimes we’ll see uninsured work that’s been recommended as a precaution or to protect against the possibility of future damage.

We’ll have to decide if the evidence suggests the work is necessary or preferable. If we’re not satisfied it’s necessary, then it wouldn’t be fair to ask you to pay for damage which isn’t covered.

Annemos

Continuation.....

This case is about Wiring. But it still seems to say effectively .......that before you had the Fire you had a functioning Chimney. And you must now be given one back again?  

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-1726799.pdf

I did a quick search on here... there are 417 cases.... but that one was in the first few cases. 


https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions-case-studies/ombudsman-decisions/search?Keyword=lasting+and+effective+fire+damage+repairs&IndustrySectorID%5B3%5D=3&Sort=relevance&Start=30

Litbycandles

That's really helpful - thanks. It seems like lasting and effective repair is relevant, along with the concept of the indemnity policy. I'll have a look at the rest of the case studies, too. 

daveyjp

If the property is on Streetview that's one way to assess if there was any lean or disrepair before the fire.

TELLIT01

daveyjp said:

If the property is on Streetview that's one way to assess if there was any lean or disrepair before the fire.

I was about to make the same suggestion.  Streetview images seem to be updated quite often, assuming you live in a fairly built up area.

ThorOdinson

Have you had a look on Google street view to see if there is a recent photo of your chimney? Also on Google Maps and Bing Maps satellite photos as sometimes it can be seen there.

Litbycandles

Streetview etc won't work as the house isn't on a public road so it hasn't been photographed.