Home Recently changed insurer, who is liable?

G

geraghgf

Guest
Hello there,

Three weeks ago i changed my home insurance provider. In the last few days i have discovered that there is substantial water damage to a wall and press by a leaky pipe. I discovered this while clearing the kitchen as we intend on getting a new kitchen in the coming days.

I was wondering which insurer I should contact to make a claim? The previous one or the new one? (the water damage looks to have been caused over years, but wasnt visible until the press was removed) or if i have a case for even making a claim? Thanks in advance for any help and I hope my questions aren't too silly :)
 
How bad is the damage? and if it had gone on for years you surely would have got a mouldy stagnant smell from the water before now.
 
You should claim under your CURRENT insurer and let them follow up with previous insurer.
 
It sounds like it could be classified as a maintenance issue (gradual deterioration / damage over time) rather than a single 'catastrophic event' and liability may be declined but by all means submit your claim.
 
If it's been going on for years or even longer i.e a month or months for that matter there's no point in claiming from your current Insurers - they will decline liability and rightly so. Plus if it's an ongoing problem it's safe to say it's a maintenance issue and not a fortuitious event which would be covered under your policy.

Get onto your previous Insurers, chance your arm, but if it's been ongoing bare in mind you'll probably have to cough up the dosh to pay for the repairs yourself.
 
Why would this not be covered under a household policy.

Surely the leaking of the pipe comes within the ambit of the bursting of a waterpipe. Conceptually, it is just the same as a massive and dramatic burst only at a vastly slower rate !

So, has an insured peril not operated ?

I see no need to think about chancing one's arm. It is an insured event. I would notify both insurers and let them resolve any issues of contribution between them. Given the modern standards of insurers they probably will not be able to agree on what day of the week it is but that is no excuse for keeping the client out of funds in the end . Persistence.
 
operated at a vastly slower rate = gradually operating cause = exclusion on most insurance policies Direct Devil.
 
peteb said:
operated at a vastly slower rate = gradually operating cause = exclusion on most insurance policies Direct Devil.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how and when can you convert an insured peril in to a gradually operating cause and thus convert it in to an exclusion. Is there anything in policy wordings to stand this argument up ?

I am not attacking what you say but I am just curious to get the point clear in my own mind. There are times when I think that the attitude of an insurer might just depend on who deals with your case !!
 
DirectDevil said:
Out of curiosity, how and when can you convert an insured peril in to a gradually operating cause and thus convert it in to an exclusion. Is there anything in policy wordings to stand this argument up ?

I am not attacking what you say but I am just curious to get the point clear in my own mind. There are times when I think that the attitude of an insurer might just depend on who deals with your case !!
Click to expand...


Its the other way around. In the vast majority of cases,the attitude of whoever deals with a claim, is governed and predetermined by the insurer involved.
 
We changed Insurer last year after we borrowed to do a big extension. Shortly after we had two leaks, not huge but for some reason cream tiles turned a strange shade of grey in two places, only amounted to about ten tiles in all but its dreadfully noticeable. Insurer said we are only covered for the damaged tiles which we can no longer source. Will have to live with them as we cant afford to replace them at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top