Home Can insurance company force me to use their contractors

[niallmur]

I had a leak in my house over christmas that has caused about 8k worth of damage. i have had 2 quotes from builders that both quoted roughly the same for the clean up and do all the repairs, but my insurance company says that if my claim is over 6k them will make me use their contractors! Can they do this? i have issues with handing the keys to my house to a stranger that i have not vetted or was recommended.

 

[pj111]

Have you checked the policy document ? They probably have some t&c that allows them to. I have a claim that I'm looking after and the Loss Adjustor is looking after the builder and the price was 20% cheaper than any quote the householder got. Who are you insured with ? And what is the name of the policy ?

 

[T McGibney]

Dunno about home insurance but some motor insurance companies do this on a routine basis. If I were you I would resist it at all costs. Apart altogether from domestic security issues, a contractor appointed by a third party has no duty of care to you, if you're not satisfied with their work.

 

[pj111]

I would have thought one would have recourse to the insurers or loss adjusters to ensure job is carried out to sufficient standard. If they did not the insurance company would not give the contractor any more business. In many instances this could be a better option.

 

[T McGibney]

There is a difference between completing work to a specified minimum standard and completing work to the customer's satisfaction. Otherwise the term 'snag list' would not have been invented.

 

[niallmur]

thanks for the replies, i plan on resisting it for all the reasons you have mentioned above, apart from just security reasons its a very valid point that the contractor is hired by the insurance company to complete the work cheaply rather than to my satisfaction.
it just seems like bully tactics that if i cant get a builder to do the work for 6k they will get one that can.

 

[Padraigb]

How much worth of damage was done? You say €8k; the insurance company says €6k.

If the insurance company can have things restored to the appropriate standard for €6k, then they are right. If you want your chosen contractor at €8k, you should be willing to pay the difference.

 

[Claimsman]

thanks for the replies, i plan on resisting it for all the reasons you have mentioned above, apart from just security reasons its a very valid point that the contractor is hired by the insurance company to complete the work cheaply rather than to my satisfaction.
it just seems like bully tactics that if i cant get a builder to do the work for 6k they will get one that can.

Read your policy. This is the basis of the legally binding contract that exists between you and your insurance company. The policy will probably outline that insurers at their option can indemnify you by reinstatement. This means that they can if they so wish bring in a contractor to do the work to your home. If the policy doesnt outline this, then Insurers cant affect reinstatement. However, I am assuming that on the basis of what you said, the policy does have this wording.

You bought that policy. If that wording is in the policy document and if you had a problem with it, you shouldnt have bought it. If you plan to resist it, then you could find yourself in breach of the terms and conditions of your policy and in such cases, you may void the policy. Be careful how far you plan to resist it. You may feel that you are in a position of strength morally, but in accordance with your policy, you most likely do not have "a leg to stand on".

Insurers invoking the terms and conditions of the policy is not bully tactics, insurers are merely doing what they are entitled to do in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy will indemnify you by reinstatement. This means that you are put back in the position following an event that you enjoyed immediately beforehand, but as new. Satisfaction is a subjective thing and as long as Insurers reinstate to the appropriate level, they are fulfilling their contractual obligations.

Contrary to what people think, Insurers panel contractors are fully vetted and checked by insurers before they are allowed to carry out work. They carry all the relevant insurances etc.

If you are in any way unhappy with the way you are being treated, there is a complaints procedure and indeed, you can ask that your complaint be referred to the Insurance Ombudsman, who will give a binding ruling, which if you dont agree with, can be subject to an appeal to the High Court.

 

[peteb]

Good comprehensive answer as always Claimsman

 

[Mr Burns]

Good comprehensive answer as always Claimsman

+1

Claimsman - most home policies will cover the cost of Architect's/Surveyor's fees incurred by the policyholder e.g. RSA Safehomes t/c - Fees for Architects, surveyors and other professionals registered under the Building Act which You have to pay in connection with repairing or reinstating the Building

Can the OP insist on an Architect or Surveyor of their choosing to supervise the insurance companies builder? Thereby providing them with some additional peace of mind.

 

[Claimsman]

+1

Claimsman - most home policies will cover the cost of Architect's/Surveyor's fees incurred by the policyholder e.g. RSA Safehomes t/c - Fees for Architects, surveyors and other professionals registered under the Building Act which You have to pay in connection with repairing or reinstating the Building

Can the OP insist on an Architect or Surveyor of their choosing to supervise the insurance companies builder? Thereby providing them with some additional peace of mind.

The standard wording under a domestic policy is to provide cover for Surveyors/Architects fees..necessarily and reasonably incurred....with our consent in the reinstatement...

The important word in that is "necessarily". Many insurers have taken a view on this that projects of the size of the repairs suggested by the OP are minor and do not warrant supervision. Therefore, the tendency is for insurers to resist making payment for fees in supervision in smaller repairs as these are not deemed necessary.

As far as I am aware, this view has not been tested either in the courts or by the Ombudsman. I believe that the view of insurers may be too stringent on this point as every case is different and there may well be merits in smaller cases warranting supervison. I would be very interested to hear a court or ombudsman ruling on this point.