|
Fresh 8:57 Tue Mar 8
Insurance experts
|
|
Why don't insurance companies pay on issues relating to gradual cause ? Got an outbuilding and the floor base is starting to crack due to a next door neighbors trees. You will not see a larger conifer. Anyway the insurance company won't look at this because the tree roots have been damaging gradually over time rather than suddenly. Any advice on this? Can speak to neighbors but the damage is already done.
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
COOL HAND LUKE
7:49 Wed Mar 9
Re: Insurance experts
|
JGW
*As others have said this sounds like subsidence (heave is the impact you might get later when the trees are removed and the intrusion recedes).*
Completely back to front. It is most likely to be heave (ground movement UPWARDS due to intrusion or ground pressure etc), subs being DOWNWARDS movement, poss as a result of tree removal and/or the washing away of subsoil by water ingress etc, or movement of foundations for a whole hatful of reasons.
Honest Hammer
*Insurers can and do cover risks that are gradual rather than sudden, standard household buildings wouldn't have that as a standard peril though.*
The only way this would be covered is as a heave / subs claim, which the excess and future insurance repercussions would render non viable.
Gradual damage is NOT covered, standard peril or otherwise - insurance is not a 'maintenance package'... e.g. if the storm blows down your soffit boards, for example, and it can be shown that you have done little or nothing to 'maintain the property to an acceptable standard' then a claim would be declined. And even if you HAD maintained it properly, there are national data centres for assessing storm severity, and if the storm data for your area is below the considered threshold, that's a decline too.
We can have a 1000 posts on this one, and the claim will still be 'not worth pursuing'.
Sounds like the insurance co did not refer this to subs dept, but even if they had done so, end result is unchanged.
Incidentally, this is not my response, it's my wife's response. And as she spends every day as a Loss Adjuster / Claims Analyst with the GIB, I suspect she may have half an idea...
|
Honest Hammer
6:52 Wed Mar 9
Re: Insurance experts
|
Insurers can and do cover risks that are gradual rather than sudden, standard household buildings wouldn't have that as a standard peril though.
Generally you be expected to sort a gradual problem rather than letting it manifest.
|
JGW1
12:30 Wed Mar 9
Re: Insurance experts
|
But having read on its definitely not desirable to have a subs claim on your record. But even a "loss" as opposed to a successful claim" is disclosable. At least at the moment you have the insurers professional view that it's not subsidence so you could answer questions honestly that you've NOT had a subsidence related loss and technically you wouldn't be non disclosing!
|
JGW1
12:19 Wed Mar 9
Re: Insurance experts
|
As others have said this sounds like subsidence (heave is the impact you might get later when the trees are removed and the intrusion recedes).
This is not what I'd call wear and tear or a gradually operating cause by any stretch. That would typically be the impact of poor maintenance or natural degradation of materials over a period of time but not that caused by an external force like a tree.
Typical remedial action should be the removal of the tree and then a period of monitoring to see whether the movement continues. But if the insurer doubts the cause is ground movement they might insist on doing the monitoring (potentially over several months) first.
You might have a situation in which the insurer simply doubts that the tree(s) is he cause and the damage and that some other issue with the buildings structure or construction is affecting it. But did they send a loss adjuster out and have they got an expert report that argues the cause of the cracks? If they haven't you need to apply some pressure. And even if they have an expert report you should consider getting your own. If that counters there's and leads to your claim being paid they should pay for your expert costs.
Either way, complain to the insurer first.
|
Pi Alpha Nu
11:32 Wed Mar 9
Re: Insurance experts
|
Insurance companies are cunts.
|
COOL HAND LUKE
11:19 Wed Mar 9
Re: Insurance experts
|
Buster is right... it would be a subs / heave claim, thru your insurance, and they would claim back from your neighbour's insurance (or from your neighbour) under the Principle of Subrogation.
The 'decline' is probably because you got thru to general household claims? They should have seen it for what it is, and transferred the call to their bespoke 'subs' team. Lot of churn in call centres, they are not all experienced enough to evaluate subs as a proximate cause.
However.. as Buster states, the hefty subs excess will likely make it un-viable, and you don't really want subs claims on your ins history anyway, as this will restrict your property's insurability options in the future.
All considered, best thing would be to 'remove the problem' i.e. dispense with the outbuilding / erect it elsewhere, away from the proximate cause (the tree roots).
Unlikely to be worth pursuing. Just check at renewal and make sure they don't 'misinterpret' the declined claim and hump your premiums.
|
Buster
9:12 Tue Mar 8
Re: Insurance experts
|
Tree root ingress to an outbuilding shouldn't be classed as gradual cause, surely? Same as it wouldn't if you suffered subsidence to the home due to tree roots. I'd be challenging their decision on that one.
If they deem it to be subsidence though you're probably looking at a £1,000 excess.
|
Fresh
9:02 Tue Mar 8
Re: Insurance experts
|
Not sure really. Both before my time. Why ?
|
,
8:58 Tue Mar 8
Re: Insurance experts
|
Was the base laid after the tree or before?
|
|
|
|
