The Lemon Fool

My son has just had a leaking pipe. I have been going through his insurance policy document and it says on page 7 in section under Building Insurance - Escape of Water - What your policy covers:

Loss or damage resulting from escape of water.
■ Sudden and unexpected water leaking from or freezing in any washing machine, dishwasher,
fridge, freezer or fixed domestic water, drainage or heating installation.
■ We will also pay up to the limit for any one claim for necessary and reasonable costs that you
incur in tracing and accessing the source of the damage to the home. This includes reinstating
any wall, floor, ceiling, drive, fence or path removed or damaged during the search.

Then in a 'note' on Page 17 Buildings Insurance - Optional Extra

You are not covered for accidental damage to buildings unless you add this section.
Your schedule will show if you have purchased this option.

Indeed there is a series of other optional extras on the following pages.

Is it a robust contention to state you read the earlier parts of the policy document and assumed you are covered and when you came to a heading optional extras you did nor read as you felt you had the necessary coverage? Surely any such rejoinder should be placed immediately on the first reference to coverage regarding escape of water?

T7

A pipe leak wouldn't have been what I understood by 'accidental damage', so I'd have assumed that your son would be covered?

BJ

I agree. My buildings insurance specifically states that it covers loss or damage from escape of water from domestic appliances. Accidental damage cover is an add on (that I do not have). The schedule shows an excess for water damage, so clearly (to my mind) shows that it applies. Accidental damage is I would assume is something that happens as a result of an action by you or someone else in the house.

The key point relates to the 'track and trace'. In other words the insurance companies are stating that the cost of tracing and subsequently repairing floorboards, pipes etc are not 'water damage' per se and can only be covered if you take out extra cover despite the statement earlier in the document that it is covered.

How 'honest' is it to state one thing early in the document and then state effectively the opposite on a much later page in the document that you may not read as you already believe you understand the coverage. Why not state this all on the same page? Then of course how legal is this - maybe another question. Maybe a question of naming and shaming such a slight of hand.

T7

My reading of what you quote is that there is cover and this is pretty standard under most buildings policies.

The section about accidental damage is entirely irrelevant. Accidental building damage might be if you knock something over and make a hole in a wall, for example. Water leakage is a specifically mentioned peril entirely unrelated to accidental damage.

The first bullet point of your first quote is all that matters, unless work has to be done to trace the leak, when the second point would also kick in.

Of course if there is damage to any contents (carpets, furniture etc?), this would not be covered. This would come under the contents policy.

terminal7 wrote:The key point relates to the 'track and trace'. In other words the insurance companies are stating that the cost of tracing and subsequently repairing floorboards, pipes etc are not 'water damage' per se and can only be covered if you take out extra cover despite the statement earlier in the document that it is covered.

How 'honest' is it to state one thing early in the document and then state effectively the opposite on a much later page in the document that you may not read as you already believe you understand the coverage. Why not state this all on the same page? Then of course how legal is this - maybe another question. Maybe a question of naming and shaming such a slight of hand.

T7

That is an unnecessary slur on insurers. The key point is as stated in the OP's first quote 'Loss or damage from the escape of water from........' is covered subject only to whatever excess applies. End of.

I do not know what terminal7 means by his first paragraph, but if the escape of water results in bringing down a ceiling in the insured house for example then the cost of reinstatement is covered. you do not need accidental damage cover for that. in fact for most damage to a domestic property it is specifically covered, Fire and Explosion, Aircraft, damage by water and storm and so on. Accidental damage to a building is rather unlikely but I had damage to bathroom fixtures, to wit my shower glass caused by my wife slipping and crashing into it. Most policies specifically cover accidental damage to bathroom fixtures and fittings.

Going back to damage from the escape of water, that is covered quite specifically so with son's leaking pipe, it may or may not have caused much damage but any damage will be covered subject to the excess.

Dod

terminal7 wrote:The key point relates to the 'track and trace'. In other words the insurance companies are stating that the cost of tracing and subsequently repairing floorboards, pipes etc are not 'water damage' per se and can only be covered if you take out extra cover despite the statement earlier in the document that it is covered.

I think there has been some misunderstanding somewhere.

The policy covers normal leaks and it covers tracing those normal leaks - I am not sure why anyone would think otherwise..

What it doesn’t cover unless you buy the optional extra is water damage resulting from accidental damage - drilling through a pipe or letting a bath overflow.

So is the issue that the cause of the leak was accidental damage but there is now expense tracing and repairing that accidental damage?

So is the issue that the cause of the leak was accidental damage but there is now expense tracing and repairing that accidental damage?

Sorry if I have been unclear. My son lives on the top floor of a converted house and there are 2 flats beneath him. He was informed late last week that water was dripping through the ceilings of the flats below - strangely significantly more was dripping into the bottom flat than the mid flat. He was unaware of any water leakage and nothing was evident to the naked eye from within his flat. He phoned his insurance company as soon as he became aware of the situation. They informed him that he was covered for water damage in his flat but not for work involved in tracing the leak and subsequent repair. He had not read the policy document at that stage. The first message in this thread contains quotes directly from the docs. The leakage problem has hopefully been resolved over the weekend and I (on his behalf) intend to phone to contend the insurance company's position. Incidentally they also claimed that his policy did not cover water damage to the other properties. This appears to contradict their coverage under the section Property owners' liability.

Of course I was not privy to the conversation that took place.

T7

terminal7 wrote: Incidentally they also claimed that his policy did not cover water damage to the other properties. This appears to contradict their coverage under the section Property owners' liability.

Of course I was not privy to the conversation that took place.

T7

It's a while since I was involved in insurance, but as I understand it, the parties below who suffered damage would claim on their own insurance.

Your son has not been negligent so cannot be held responsible for their damage.

Having said that, I know nothing about flats or specifically leases, which I suppose might impose some sort of absolute liability.

terminal7 wrote:

So is the issue that the cause of the leak was accidental damage but there is now expense tracing and repairing that accidental damage?

Sorry if I have been unclear. My son lives on the top floor of a converted house and there are 2 flats beneath him. He was informed late last week that water was dripping through the ceilings of the flats below - strangely significantly more was dripping into the bottom flat than the mid flat. He was unaware of any water leakage and nothing was evident to the naked eye from within his flat. He phoned his insurance company as soon as he became aware of the situation. They informed him that he was covered for water damage in his flat but not for work involved in tracing the leak and subsequent repair. He had not read the policy document at that stage. The first message in this thread contains quotes directly from the docs. The leakage problem has hopefully been resolved over the weekend and I (on his behalf) intend to phone to contend the insurance company's position. Incidentally they also claimed that his policy did not cover water damage to the other properties. This appears to contradict their coverage under the section Property owners' liability.

Of course I was not privy to the conversation that took place.

T7

Sorry but there must still be some confusion as the optional extra section has nothing to do with covering the cost of tracing a ‘non-accidental’ leak, which is covered by the policy.

The cost of repairing the leak itself is normally not covered as that is considered to be ‘wear and tear’, only the damage caused by the leak (or finding the leak).

As for the damage to other properties, your son would be covered if he was liable for the damage. To be liable then he would have had to have been negligent (e.g. an overflowing bath) but if it was simply something which had failed over time (e.g. a washing machine hose perishing) then he hasn’t been negligent and isn’t liable even though the water came from his flat. The other owners will need to claim on their insurance for the damage to their properties.

AF 62 is correct as I discovered some time back. Many years ago when I was studying insurance for my FCII, there was a famous or at least well known case Rylands v Fletcher, which basically made the owner of the hazard (in this case the pipe containing water) responsible if it caused damage to a third party's property, so if you lived on say the second floor in a block of flats and water escaped from a burst pipe or a washing machine, and caused damage to the flat below you were automatically responsible. Some years ago though that was rescinded and now we are back to straightforward negligence being required. It can cause problems because any escape of water could be claimed as negligence but it is up to the other party to prove it, which is quite difficult.

However if the son is proved to be negligent, his insurance should pay for any claim in addition to damage to his own falt.

Dod

We own a share in a ground floor flat. The upstairs flat had two separate leaks..both their fault ( years of neglect by the landlord and a screw up when the landlord decided to do up the flat to sell).

First leak ...we had to move our tenant out for 6 weeks whilst they stripped out the very recently installed new bathroom , removed ceiling, removed plaster from the adjacent wall lounge , Dehumidification of the walls, replaster and refit the bathroom....We got stiffed by the insurance for a £250 insurance charge which our insurance company said they could not claim this back from the landlord of the first floor flats insurance company.

The second leak....proving it was down to their negligence in the eyes of the insurance as to when the leak had started was the problem. After prolonged arguments with the insurance companies, We eventually agreed to split the bill 50:50 with the other landlord - .our insurance company made it all too difficult.

The guilty party upstairs....well, they claimed for brand new kitchen units....and got away with it despite the leak being below their floorboards!

The insurance companies were difficult to deal with and our seemed uninterested in helping us in directing the blame ( =cost) on the first floor where the leaks originated.

Bloomin annoying.

The message (or moral) of this thread is .......if you are gonna buy a flat, but a top floor flat. At least nobody is gonna leak on you.

richlist wrote:The message (or moral) of this thread is .......if you are gonna buy a flat, but a top floor flat. At least nobody is gonna leak on you.

Then of course a top floor flat can bring problems of its own, When the roof leaks...........

Dod

Dod101 wrote:Then of course a top floor flat can bring problems of its own, When the roof leaks...........

...You're in for a twelve month tussle with the management company while they schedule the service charge repairs and get the estimates in.

Or worse. My daughter was all set to buy a sizeable penthouse flat when the survey revealed that its oversized balcony was collapsing, and the lease said she'd be solely responsible for both the replacement and the damage it was causing to other people's flats. She thought better of the idea.

BJ

I have quite a few flats on all floors, I've been letting for more than 20 years. I've had water leaks from my flats and into my flats on a few occasions........I have never had a leaking roof.

Top floor flats have two major advantages.....they are usually quieter as.noise travels down more than up and you haven't got a flat above to leak into yours.

terminal7 wrote:

So is the issue that the cause of the leak was accidental damage but there is now expense tracing and repairing that accidental damage?

Sorry if I have been unclear. My son lives on the top floor of a converted house and there are 2 flats beneath him. He was informed late last week that water was dripping through the ceilings of the flats below - strangely significantly more was dripping into the bottom flat than the mid flat. He was unaware of any water leakage and nothing was evident to the naked eye from within his flat. He phoned his insurance company as soon as he became aware of the situation. They informed him that he was covered for water damage in his flat but not for work involved in tracing the leak and subsequent repair. He had not read the policy document at that stage. The first message in this thread contains quotes directly from the docs. The leakage problem has hopefully been resolved over the weekend and I (on his behalf) intend to phone to contend the insurance company's position. Incidentally they also claimed that his policy did not cover water damage to the other properties. This appears to contradict their coverage under the section Property owners' liability.

Of course I was not privy to the conversation that took place.

T7

Surely this changes everything as presumably your son is the leaseholder.

AIUI, leases usually specify the freeholder is to arrange building insurance (cost to be apportioned amongst the leaseholders), so it is not clear to me why your son even has a insurance policy covering escape of water. The freeholder is normally the policyholder and the person (or legal entity) to be making the claim.

(Edit for clarity.)

Hi Mike 4 - thanks for your message - he is both the leaseholder and freeholder.

T7

terminal7 wrote:

So is the issue that the cause of the leak was accidental damage but there is now expense tracing and repairing that accidental damage?

Sorry if I have been unclear. My son lives on the top floor of a converted house and there are 2 flats beneath him. He was informed late last week that water was dripping through the ceilings of the flats below - strangely significantly more was dripping into the bottom flat than the mid flat. He was unaware of any water leakage and nothing was evident to the naked eye from within his flat. He phoned his insurance company as soon as he became aware of the situation. They informed him that he was covered for water damage in his flat but not for work involved in tracing the leak and subsequent repair. He had not read the policy document at that stage. The first message in this thread contains quotes directly from the docs. The leakage problem has hopefully been resolved over the weekend and I (on his behalf) intend to phone to contend the insurance company's position. Incidentally they also claimed that his policy did not cover water damage to the other properties. This appears to contradict their coverage under the section Property owners' liability.

Of course I was not privy to the conversation that took place.

T7

As MIke4 says, if your son is a leaseholder that may change things, but you have not said that that is the case. Setting that to one side, I am sure that if your son is found to be negligent in allowing water to escape and it damages property beneath him his insurance will cover that. There is no automatic assumption of negligence though and his insurers are I suspect encouraging him, maybe even instructing him, to deny liability if a claim is made by the downstairs neighbours. What contention do you intend to make re the insurance company's position?

One of the problems about seeking answers on a Board like this is that seldom are the full facts enumerated so the responses may turn out to be unhelpful or even downright wrong. So he is leaseholder and freeholder. What does that mean? Does each tenant have their own insurance? What about the common parts?

Dod