Insurance Claim - Buildings or Contents

[the0ni0nking]

I own a property leasehold (999 year lease) and I also own the freehold to the same building.

Recently, there has been a leak in the property which has caused extensive damage and is now subject to a 4 figure (might end up being 5) insurance claim.

I've been passed from pillar to post when speaking to the insurers as to whom is responsible.

I appreciate the likely response will be "check your paperwork" but surely this happens fairly often.

So in general, who is being an @rse as one of the insurers must be responsible?

The matter is small overall - the difference is the excess on each policy which is c£1k different

[the0ni0nking]

NB - I'm quite happy with the current estimated cost of repair so that is not an issue.

I'm also advised that the leak which caused all the damage is a pipe internal to the flat - its not a communal pipe

[Dicky99]

What kind of leak? Is it weather related or escape of water from, for example, a pipe?

[Dicky99]

NB - I'm quite happy with the current estimated cost of repair so that is not an issue.

I'm also advised that the leak which caused all the damage is a pipe internal to the flat - its not a communal pipe

Check your "escape of water" cover in your Buildings Insurance.

[the0ni0nking]

It's 100% pipe related not weather related. I've been provided with videos showing the pipe leaking (I'd describe it as p1ssing water out)

[chas49]

Can you just make a claim on whichever policy has the lower excess?

If they aren't (or say they aren't) liable, you can either dispute it or claim on the other policy.

I assume that only one of the policies covers the damage. If they're both liable for part - perhaps different aspects of the damage?) then you'll be hit with both excesses I think

[88V8]

I own a property leasehold (999 year lease) and I also own the freehold to the same building.

So it's a flat, and you own the whole block?

The head policy - freeholder's - should have a clause stipulating that it is primary cover for common areas, and only pays for damage to individual flats if the flat-owner's policy does not cover the loss or is otherwise inadequate.

Without such a clause, you as flat and block owner have dual insurance. Thus a 'contribution clause' comes into play, the two policies share the loss, but as Chas has said, there will be two excesses.

Presumably, to make matters worse, your two policies are with different insurers, which removes the incentive for them to deal with the claim in an expedient manner.

V8

[the0ni0nking]

Can you just make a claim on whichever policy has the lower excess?

If they aren't (or say they aren't) liable, you can either dispute it or claim on the other policy.

I assume that only one of the policies covers the damage. If they're both liable for part - perhaps different aspects of the damage?) then you'll be hit with both excesses I think

The lower excess (by some margin) is on the contents insurance on the property.

Now, I've read both insurance policies and in my mind the narrative would suggest it falls on the contents insurance on the flat in question.

However - after about 5 hours of phone calls - as it turns out the buildings insurance is the one that ultimately seems to be the one sticking their hand up. I'll be honest and say I'm not boithered either way but when me, as a layman, thinks company A should be covering it but actually company B are covering it it does strike me as slightly odd.

[the0ni0nking]

I own a property leasehold (999 year lease) and I also own the freehold to the same building.

So it's a flat, and you own the whole block?

V8

That is correct

[LucasMorro]

Generally, liability for water damage depends on what is stated in your contracts and insurance policies. For example, if the leak was caused by a fault in your building, you as the owner may be liable. However, if the leak was due to a faulty water supply, your landlord or the insurance company that provided insurance for the building may be liable.

[chas49]

Generally, liability for water damage depends on what is stated in your contracts and insurance policies. For example, if the leak was caused by a fault in your building, you as the owner may be liable. However, if the leak was due to a faulty water supply, your landlord or the insurance company that provided insurance for the building may be liable.

Hi Lucas. That's an interesting comment. Do you have any personal experience of this?

[Charlottesquare]

It is for with these sorts of events that I am grateful we use brokers, they tend (sometimes) to cut through the pain with the different insurance companies (though not always), however we do not have your leasehold complications as a rule but can certainly have different policies for the same building (Contractor/Building/Contents/Lifts & Engineering etc) plus sometimes distinct liability covers.

[Mike4]

Back in the dim & distant past I once read the really small print in one of my own insurance policies right to the end.

In it found a clause that bothered me slightly, and might be come into play if the OP's policies have similar. It said (something to the effect) that in the event of there being two policies covering the same risk, this policy would not pay out and the policyholder must claim on the other policy.

Tricky if both policies contain the same clause.

[1nvest]

I own a property leasehold (999 year lease) and I also own the freehold to the same building.

Recently, there has been a leak in the property which has caused extensive damage and is now subject to a 4 figure (might end up being 5) insurance claim.

I've been passed from pillar to post when speaking to the insurers as to whom is responsible.

I appreciate the likely response will be "check your paperwork" but surely this happens fairly often.

So in general, who is being an @rse as one of the insurers must be responsible?

The matter is small overall - the difference is the excess on each policy which is c£1k different

We were with the Halifax insurance. When it came to a water damage claim we had repeated different assessors come around weeks apart, letters/phone calls to-and-fro etc. and despite assurances of oh yes this and that will be done etc. after months no work had started (not even de-humidification) - apparently as they were all up-North (we live in Surrey) - and they'll send (yet another) assessor around. In the end they won, we gave up (life's too short to have it shortened by stress) and paid for the work/repairs privately.

[the0ni0nking]

We were with the Halifax insurance. When it came to a water damage claim we had repeated different assessors come around weeks apart, letters/phone calls to-and-fro etc. and despite assurances of oh yes this and that will be done etc. after months no work had started (not even de-humidification) - apparently as they were all up-North (we live in Surrey) - and they'll send (yet another) assessor around. In the end they won, we gave up (life's too short to have it shortened by stress) and paid for the work/repairs privately.

I suspect that is the situation I'm likely to end up in.

Not sure if I've mentioned earlier in this thread but I'm currently in Spain so can't really do anything.

I've told the insurance it was an emergency and needed to be sorted - because tenants were in situ - and that I need to leave it to the letting agent to resolve.

They've taken videos (I've seen them) of water coming through the floor and got estimates for the work. As it is, I've currently paid for these works and am now simply waiting for the final paperwork to come through with invoices etc.

The overall amount is around £3k so it's not going to break the bank if the insurer chooses to argue their process has not been followed and not pay out. Thankfully, I've never had experience of claiming on buildings insurance ever so it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

I think my one insurance claim in my entire life was on the contents side of my own property (to do with specifically named and listed hearing aids on the contents) and they handled the process so swiftly and efficiently I was genuinely shocked! I suspect, this time around I will suffer the reverse!

[the0ni0nking]

Revisiting this post now just under 3 months after the initial claim was lodged.

Due to the emergency nature of the works (and the fact tenants were in situ), the work was done pretty quickly (within a few days) and invoices submitted by the suppliers shortly after.

As I've been overseas for large parts of this period, the whole claim has largely been dealt with via my letting agent (the sole property where I have one!) - which in fairness has been helpful as most contact has gone through them and they've provided additional detail as and when the need arose.

There were a couple of suppliers that did the work, and the insurance company claims department (outsourced) rang me today advising that they were prepared to settle paying all bar one of the invoices.

The one invoice they've struck out is because they have deemed it to be repairs/non-essential to the emergency - I've some sympathy with this and the supplier didn't help me in terms of how they described the work by calling part of it an "upgrade".

However, end result claim settled at what works out as about 80% of the total cost of the invoices received so pleased with that - especially given other posts on here who ended up frustrated on this.

The delights will be the impact on the insurance renewal in October.

Cheers