hOUSE BUILDINGS INSURANCE - subsidence history

Gavsbird

Aberis - thank you, thank you, thank you for the tip about L&G. Our subsidence was 1986 so have just got an online quote for about 60% of what we are currently paying! On the quote preamble it states that subsidence/underpinning from more than 15 yrs ago doesn't count. Looking good so far but going to ring them tomorrow just to double-check!

If only other insruers took this sensible view on underpinning!

madmish00

AXA only ask about subsidence in the last 10 years. May be worth a look.

madmish00

tried AXA but they can't insure me after I mentioned the underpinning. However, if I had answered the online questions honestly I could have bought insurance (as I couldn't find anything in their Ts & Cs saying otherwise)

Did they give any explanation as to why?

Seems to me that they would struggle to refuse to pay out on a claim for someone who had taken the policy out online as there is defintely nothing that says they will not cover a property which has been underpinned.

Fromthejam123

madmish00 wrote: »

Did they give any explanation as to why?

Seems to me that they would struggle to refuse to pay out on a claim for someone who had taken the policy out online as there is defintely nothing that says they will not cover a property which has been underpinned.

Important notice for anyone who thinks you only need to disclose information specifically asked for by insurers, including online quotes
You have an ongoing duty of disclosure of all material facts relating to the risk, and previous subsidence and underpinning would definitely be a material fact. Failure to disclose would most likely lead to the policy being void from inception and of course no claim.

FlameCloud

Fromthejam123 wrote: »

Important notice for anyone who thinks you only need to disclose information specifically asked for by insurers, including online quotes
You have an ongoing duty of disclosure of all material facts relating to the risk, and previous subsidence and underpinning would definitely be a material fact. Failure to disclose would most likely lead to the policy being void from inception and of course no claim.

The FOS would view any really strict interpretation of this harshly in my experience. This is one area of law that really needs to be changed.

madmish00

Important notice for anyone who thinks you only need to disclose information specifically asked for by insurers, including online quotes
You have an ongoing duty of disclosure of all material facts relating to the risk, and previous subsidence and underpinning would definitely be a material fact. Failure to disclose would most likely lead to the policy being void from inception and of course no claim.

The exact wording on the AXA site is:

To the best of your knowledge has your property experienced subsidence or heave in the last 10 years?

I don't see how an "ongoing duty of disclosure of material facts" would relate to this. Obviously if there was a problem after the policy was taken out there would be a duty to disclose but it would seem to me that by asking the question specifically in relation to the last 10 years that it would be very difficult for them to blame the customer for 'failing to disclose' subsidence 20 years ago. It would appear to me from that wording that AXA accept that after 10 years the risk of further subsidence was diminished to an acceptable level to insure under normal terms.

The very fact that the vast majority of companies ask if there has 'ever' been subsidence would in my view make it difficult for AXA to then argue that anything preceding the '10 years' should have been disclose. If they wanted everything disclosed they should word their question like 95% of companies do.

I would agree with what you say about only needing to disclose information specifically asked for by insurers if it were an issue that wasn't asked about at all but you knew that it would likely affect the premium. For example has the house ever been burgled?

Fromthejam123

OK your house was underpinned over ten years ago to rectify subsidence. I would say that is a material fact which could influence the decision of an insurer to accept the risk and if so at what premium and terms.

Minor subsidence/movement may not required underpinning, but it is the solution in the majority of cases.

Bottomline, any doubts speak to the insurer. Afterall you the proposer/insured knows everything about the risk and the insurer only knows what you disclose. Insurance should give you peace of mind in the knowledge that cover is in place, so looking at possible gray areas isn't the way forward.

vaio

Fromthejam123 wrote: »

Important notice for anyone who thinks you only need to disclose information specifically asked for by insurers, including online quotes
You have an ongoing duty of disclosure of all material facts relating to the risk, and previous subsidence and underpinning would definitely be a material fact. Failure to disclose would most likely lead to the policy being void from inception and of course no claim.

I thought the FOS took the view that in these online days insurers need to ask clear & unambiguous questions about anything they deem to be a material fact rather than expecting the poor old punter to try and guess what the insurance company might consider to be material.

Which makes sense give the insurers are the experts

madmish00

I thought the FOS took the view that in these online days insurers need to ask clear & unambiguous questions about anything they deem to be a material fact rather than expecting the poor old punter to try and guess what the insurance company might consider to be material.

Exactly what I would have thought. And I would have thought that is why if you answer yes to any of the questions you are generally declined an online quote and told to ring up. How is Joe Pleb supposed to know what constitutes a material risk in the eyes of an insurance company. Looking at underpinning specifically - most structural engineers will say the house is significantly more structurally stable than a house that has not been underpinned - therefore as Joe Pleb I would take that to mean if anything that it is less of a risk. Therefore if not asked about it why would I think it necessary to disclose it.

It is not about trying to find gray areas. It is all well and good being on this site as someone who is money savvy and knowledgeable about financial products but if you asked 100 people in the street I'd say at least 95 of them wouldn't think to disclose something that wasn't asked.

Fromthejam123

madmish00 wrote: »

Exactly what I would have thought. And I would have thought that is why if you answer yes to any of the questions you are generally declined an online quote and told to ring up. How is Joe Pleb supposed to know what constitutes a material risk in the eyes of an insurance company. Looking at underpinning specifically - most structural engineers will say the house is significantly more structurally stable than a house that has not been underpinned - therefore as Joe Pleb I would take that to mean if anything that it is less of a risk. Therefore if not asked about it why would I think it necessary to disclose it.

It is not about trying to find gray areas. It is all well and good being on this site as someone who is money savvy and knowledgeable about financial products but if you asked 100 people in the street I'd say at least 95 of them wouldn't think to disclose something that wasn't asked.

Complete underpinning of a home is very rare. Only the area that has been affected by subsidence is underpinned. Afterall an insurer won't pay £XXXXXX pounds, when the cost to remedy the damage would be £XXXX. There's no guarantee the policy will remain with them. Subsidence could then occur at a later date in other area(s) of the property, by tree root ingress, or maybe leaking drains.