# buildings insurance advice



## hettyhoop (27 Feb 2013)

We had an extensive house fire 8 weeks ago, the insurance have offered what we considered to be a very low quote for their builder to complete the scope of work ( which by the way is incomplete). They refuse to outline the like for like materials they intend to put into our house. They just guarantee the work and when their builder gets into our house we can sort out the different costs with him. Totally unrealistic especially when for example the cost to replace our kitchen is 6000 he has only quoted for 4000

We are very concerned that their builder will be forced to cut corners to meet the low quote. We got an independent quote from a QS and it's more than double the insurance quote. So as a result we don't have the option to use our own builder.

This has caused more stress and upset than the fire. By the way the insurance company can counter sue the makers of the faulty appliance  which caused the fire.

What can we do? how are insurance companies allowed to get away with this?


----------



## peteb (27 Feb 2013)

Hire yourself a loss assessor if you don't feel you confident enough to deal with the matter yourself. Probably worth the 10% if the matter is complicated.


----------



## Ravima (27 Feb 2013)

+1 Peteb.

You are entitled to be put back in the same position you were. Could your QS not discuss with loss adjuster for insurer? The replacement kitchen for example at €6K - is this like for like with the old one, or is it an improvement, that you are only being offered €4K?

You mention 'countersue'. Have you the correct term? If your insurers are happy that a defective appliance caused the fire, then they will probably sue the manufacturer/importer, in your name (under subrogation clause of policy). Have you told them of the defect and if so, are you pushing them to sue, or at least tell you what they intend to do?


----------



## hettyhoop (28 Feb 2013)

all quotes we have received are like for like.

Sorry Counter claim is the correct term and we have been told by the adjuster and the manufacturer that this will happen.

The insurance company obviously work off rates and a pricing programme that bears no relevance to the real world. Also the "builder" they are recommending is in very serious debt and yet they insist we use him!

We have also been advised that we are more than likely to be out of pocket ( why do we have insurance?) and we'll have to approach the manufacturer ourselves.

Our QS report is being finalised but does it necessarily follow that the insurance will agree to their estimate?


----------



## kkelliher (28 Feb 2013)

hettyhoop said:


> all quotes we have received are like for like.
> 
> Sorry Counter claim is the correct term and we have been told by the adjuster and the manufacturer that this will happen.
> 
> ...


 

The correct term for the Counter claim is subrogation as the iunsurance comapny takes on the right to recover costs from the neglegent party if they pay out on the claim.

The insurance company should pay the cost of replacing your property back to the preloss state without exception. As the majority of the Adjusters working in the industry have no actual property costing qualifications, experience or knowledge they generally do work off schedules of rates which do not reflect reality. It is down to you (or someone on your behalf) to argue the facts of the case as best you can.  You need to outline the pre loss items against their offer and substanciate exacly where they are wrong by backing up with other quotes. I would generally advise  you to get a scope of works agreed and then sent it out to two/three local builders and submit the quotes to the insurance company, this will clearly outlined the market value of the repairs and will better assist with you complaint.

Failing this you can complain to the ombudsman with as much detail as possible or instruct a solicitor to act on your behalf and draft a complaint.

Unfortunatly some insurers go down the route of reinstatement and appointing builders which is in no way policy holder friendly as generally you have no say on the builder or his quality of work. The insurance company will be fully liable for any damage or under spec works completed by the builder as he is appointed by them


----------



## Claimsman (28 Feb 2013)

hettyhoop said:


> We had an extensive house fire 8 weeks ago, the insurance have offered what we considered to be a very low quote for their builder to complete the scope of work ( which by the way is incomplete). They refuse to outline the like for like materials they intend to put into our house. They just guarantee the work and when their builder gets into our house we can sort out the different costs with him. Totally unrealistic especially when for example the cost to replace our kitchen is 6000 he has only quoted for 4000
> 
> We are very concerned that their builder will be forced to cut corners to meet the low quote. We got an independent quote from a QS and it's more than double the insurance quote. So as a result we don't have the option to use our own builder.
> 
> ...



Without seeing your policy, I cannot be sure but I would imagine that your insurers are exercising their right under the policy to indemnify you by reinstatement...that is they have decided that they will do the work. whilst most insurers don't do this, it is their right under the policy.

That being the case, they are taking it upon themselves to effectively have all the work carried out to your home. In such circumstances, it really is irrelevant as to how much that their contractor is doing the work for, as long as it is not more expensive than you can have it done for. 

You have obtained a price from a QS and it would seem to me that this is a notional price and is not based upon a firm price quotation from a contractor...again, without seeing this, I cannot be sure. However, as this is twice the price of the insurance company contractor, all that this has done from the insurance companies perspective is demonstrate why they should stick with their own contractor....why would they pay twice the amount that their own builder can do it for?

What is relevant is that the contractor who is doing the work, is suitably qualified to do the work and most vitally, carries out the work in a proper manner and to an appropriate standard. All work and materials should meet with the building regulations. Your house should be reinstated to the same position ( but as new) following the fire that it was in prior to the fire.

In your position, I would let them at it...let the insurance company builder do the work....but with one provision...have the work supervised by your own choice of Architect/surveyor or Engineer.....under your policy, there is cover for professional fees in reinstatement..that is, the policy covers the cost of having the reinstatement work supervised and certified by a suitably qualified professional. Your engineer will assess the work as it proceeds and will have authority to insure that no corners are cut, no substandard materials are used and that all work meets with the building regs. That way, regardless of how much the insurance company builder is doing the work for, you will get your entitlement under the policy.

If your insurers refuse to allow you the costs of supervision then, they will be acting outside the scope of the policy. If they are being really sticky ( and really stupid), then they may insist that their own choice of engineer supervise the work....if this is the case, then simply, have the matter referred to Arbitration. If there is no arbitration clause under the policy, have the matter referred to the ombudsman, who will rule on the case.


----------



## hettyhoop (1 Mar 2013)

Claimsman said:


> Without seeing your policy, I cannot be sure but I would imagine that your insurers are exercising their right under the policy to indemnify you by reinstatement...that is they have decided that they will do the work. whilst most insurers don't do this, it is their right under the policy.
> 
> That being the case, they are taking it upon themselves to effectively have all the work carried out to your home. In such circumstances, it really is irrelevant as to how much that their contractor is doing the work for, as long as it is not more expensive than you can have it done for.
> 
> ...



All good advice however there are a number of errors in their original scope, which by the way their recommended builder never picked up on. There are also items omitted out of the scope such as what will happen our radiators which are all smoke damaged.

Are we expected to let their builder carry out a vague work scope, and what happens if items he has priced, which remain unspecified are more expensive to purchase than he allowed for  i.e. specific branded windows or items not in the scope which should be, i.e radiators.

Also our concern is that there are several weeks of work required, what the builder has quoted couldn't possibly cover wages, so if you pay buttons you get monkeys. I'm not happy to risk shoddy work just to please the insurance company.

Essentially they have produced a list from a computer which bears no relationship to real quotes. Our quote came from a builder via a QS.

Is is feasible for us to request an updated scope and a different recommended builder to quote?


----------



## ABBA (1 Mar 2013)

DEAR CLAIMSMAN 

would you have a look at my thread please. 

Me and my father have been in business in Scotland for over 40 years and three years ago he retired and left all responsibility to me. We have a lease between us that says i have to insure and take full responsibility of the building. 

A recent fire occurred in our neighbours premises and affected us. This has led me to look at my policy in greater detail and now it seems that i may be faced with some issues. 

First issue is that my father owns the building but i insure its. loss assessors informed me that insurance may be declined because i do not own the property. 

the second issue is that the company is a limited company and i am the sole owner but in the policy it has my name and not the limited company name.


----------



## Claimsman (1 Mar 2013)

hettyhoop said:


> All good advice however there are a number of errors in their original scope, which by the way their recommended builder never picked up on. There are also items omitted out of the scope such as what will happen our radiators which are all smoke damaged.
> 
> Are we expected to let their builder carry out a vague work scope, and what happens if items he has priced, which remain unspecified are more expensive to purchase than he allowed for  i.e. specific branded windows or items not in the scope which should be, i.e radiators.
> 
> ...



Your insurance company are engaging the contractor and if he leaves something out, does something shoddy, runs out of money, under prices some element of the work, even burns down the house....whatever, then that's your insurance companies problem, not yours. They have elected to reinstate, so reinstate they must regardless of what happens....you will not be taking the risk, they will.

Your insurance company are undertaking to repair your property and if the policy allows them to do that, then if you are attempting to frustrate them in executing the work, you may find that you are in breach of the policy....in other words, you may have little choice but to let them do the work and a legal challenge may be the only option open to you, one which you are far from guaranteed to win.

I will reiterate my original advice.....let them at it, but only under the supervision of your choice of Architect, Engineer, Surveyor who you can entrust to make sure that the work is done to the appropriate standard and in accordance with the building regs. You should even insist that your engineer agrees the scope of work beforehand.

I hope things work out for you.


----------



## kkelliher (1 Mar 2013)

In order to make a claim you need to have legal interest in the property. The exact conditions of the lease will dictate the issue. You may have an issue if the lease and the insurance policy dont match


----------



## Ravima (1 Mar 2013)

Hetty: I am a long time on this earth and with God's help, will be longer still, but in all my years, I have never heard of radiators having to be replaced due to smoke damage. Would not a coat of paint fix them?

This may, and I say may, be the root of your problem. Are you looking for the moon and stars and not just the moon?


----------



## hettyhoop (1 Mar 2013)

Ravima said:


> Hetty: I am a long time on this earth and with God's help, will be longer still, but in all my years, I have never heard of radiators having to be replaced due to smoke damage. Would not a coat of paint fix them?
> 
> This may, and I say may, be the root of your problem. Are you looking for the moon and stars and not just the moon?



Have you ever had a fire in your home? The extent of the smoke damage is beyond belief. Not to mention the trauma.  The rise in outside temp increases the smell in the house so you can only imagine what the smell will be in the house will be  like turning on the heaters given that the soot has settled in the accordion style insides of the radiator.


----------



## gimp (3 Mar 2013)

+1 on loss assessor
Employ your own and they work for you to agree the damage with the insurer
You will not have to deal with the insurer, they will do so on your behalf with your consultation. They take a % of the final figure, 10% i think is normal but well worth the money. You might be surprised with the result. They will probably come and look at the damage and give you an estimation of what they might achieve.


----------



## Ravima (3 Mar 2013)

Insurance does not compensate for 'trauma'. I would think that if rads were properly cleaned and repainted, they would be grand. 

Those that suggest employing your own assessor are giving good advice.


----------



## Ordinary Man (4 Mar 2013)

Insurance certainly does not compensate for trauma, however Insurance Companies certainly create it.

My uncle was unfortunate enough to have a house fire last year and trustingly let the insurance companies recommended builders in. They basically did a quick cheap, in and out job on his house and three months later the problems started to arise. He contacted the Inusrance Company, who then said contact the builder as he did the work. The builder ignored him and refused to even visit his house and look at the problems. He went back to the insurers and was getting nowhere, they just screened his calls and sent him around the offices ... all the while insisting it was an issue between him and the builder.

8 months later and his solicitors and architect finally got the Insurance Company to send a builder out ...... this new builder had to repair all the previous cowboys mistakes. According to the new builder, his predecessor must have had his labourer do everything from rewiring to painting as in his opinion it was a disaster waiting to happen, but how could my uncle have known that in advance.

My uncles mistake was believing the insurance company were acting in his interests by bringing in their builder. He ended up out of pocket after having to fight for his rights as the insurance company referred him to the builder and the builder has now allegedly gone bust (missing). He is still chasing the insurace company for settlement, but the hassle and stress is unreal.

Insurance Companies have only one agenda when you make a claim: cost savings. Innocent people like my uncle are easy prey for cowboy builders, I would not go near an insurance recommended builder as they are only there to cut corners, getting a regular stream of work at reduced rates.

Of course those in the industry will decry such incidents as my uncles as once offs, but I suspect theres a lot more out there. My advice to anyone faced with using an insurance company recommended builder, is 

1. to get an independent architect or project manager to act on your behalf during the rebuilding work and demand an independent (not from the builders) certificate of completion be provided as part of your settlement.
2. photograph everything everyday ..... before, during and after. 
3. always ask for details ahead of any agreement, you are entitled to know what materials are going to be used on your house repairs and what the builder is going to do.

'Buyer beware' is never more true in todays world of cost cutting, always ask the questions and demand answers when it come to letting builders into your home !!!


----------



## peteb (4 Mar 2013)

How is your uncle still waiting for settlement from an insurance company who would likely have directly settled with the builder as it from their panel?


----------



## Ordinary Man (5 Mar 2013)

When the issues started arising at my Uncles house, he phoned the Insurance Company who referred him to the builder and assured him the builder would take a look ..... this went around the houses as I have said and in the end, he finally got his Solicitor on the case. He then had to get an Architect to prove the defects were genuine and caused by poor repairs. It was only at that stage did the Insurance Co send out another builder, so in all fairness I think the man is right in seeking redress for the costs of having to make his case. The original claim was settled with the cowboy builder as you suggested, but architects and solicitors are not cheap.

Make no mistakes, there are builders out there up to their necks in debt and their creditors are knocking at the door every day. Sadly my Uncle ended up with one such outfit thanks to the Insurance Company, anyone offered a cheap repair should ask about the builders history and check everything from materials to be used to the qualifications of the operatives carrying out the work. If the Insurance Company tell you they do all this, just ask to see the details in writing as proper builders will have a detailed quotation, plan of work with a timeline, employees details and full Health & Safety details for the work on your house. Cowboy builders will give little away in details and provide no information other that verbal guarantees.


----------



## hettyhoop (18 Mar 2013)

I have to ask the question why should I hire an assessor? If I pay insurance ,when an event happens that requires me to claim on my insurance why do I need someone to negotiate on my behalf? It's a twisted system, clearly the existence of assessors has led insurance companies to quote cheap on the basis that an assessor will negotiate. I've heard too many bad assessor stories to trust them. Also I am clearly a number in a computer system and I'm only waiting for a letter saying "computer says no!". No logic is being applied in this case. Claimsmans approach to get an expert to supervise the work seems the most practical , but the behaviour of insurance companies once you dare to claim from them leaves little to be desired


----------



## peteb (19 Mar 2013)

In the event of an insurance claim, the onus is on you - the insured - to proof and substantiate your loss.  As pointed out from the start you seem completely unconfident of successfully handling the matter yourself. 

If you feel confident negotiating on your own behalf then by all means proceed.


----------



## kkelliher (19 Mar 2013)

hettyhoop said:


> I have to ask the question why should I hire an assessor? If I pay insurance ,when an event happens that requires me to claim on my insurance why do I need someone to negotiate on my behalf? It's a twisted system, clearly the existence of assessors has led insurance companies to quote cheap on the basis that an assessor will negotiate. I've heard too many bad assessor stories to trust them. Also I am clearly a number in a computer system and I'm only waiting for a letter saying "computer says no!". No logic is being applied in this case. Claimsmans approach to get an expert to supervise the work seems the most practical , but the behaviour of insurance companies once you dare to claim from them leaves little to be desired


 
why do you need an assessor?, in theory you dont, but the same could be said for any other situation or profession. In theory you never need to employ anyone to do anything if you are confident and capable of tackling it yourself but generally there are always people better qualified, experienced and positioned to assist.


----------



## Ordinary Man (20 Mar 2013)

I would agree with KKelliher, that there is always someone better qualified, experience and available to assist (at a price). If you need to rebuild, then an architect and QS are high on your list as they are totally independent professionals. They get paid on the identifiable work they do ... drawings, bill of quantities etc. 

I would say what a loss assessor brings to the table is an inside knowledge of the insurance industry, he/she would have regular dealings with the Insurance adjusters and over a period of time gets to know them (if not, then they must not have much work). I suppose this is why many people wonder if they need an assessor as the assessor gets paid by the insurance company and the issue of proving the negociations were genuine is difficult unless you are actually sitting in on them.... for many its seen as a game that both parties just play out and I think thats where hetty is coming from.

As said, if you know your rights and have the stomach to argue with Loss Adjusters, then go for it by all means. However if couldnt be bothered then a loss assessor is your ideal port of call.


----------



## peteb (20 Mar 2013)

Just to clarify your point and terminology - the "assessor" does not get paid by the insurance company.  An assessor would be the person doing the work on your behalf.  

The loss adjuster is appointed and paid by the insurance company.


----------



## kkelliher (20 Mar 2013)

peteb said:


> Just to clarify your point and terminology - the "assessor" does not get paid by the insurance company. An assessor would be the person doing the work on your behalf.
> 
> The loss adjuster is appointed and paid by the insurance company.


 
+1

Assessor is paid by the policy holder and their costs cannot be claimed as part of the claim as insurers exclude the costs of compiling a claim from the policy.

Adjuster paid by insurance company.


----------



## Claimsman (20 Mar 2013)

Ordinary Man said:


> I would agree with KKelliher, that there is always someone better qualified, experience and available to assist (at a price). If you need to rebuild, then an architect and QS are high on your list as they are totally independent professionals. They get paid on the identifiable work they do ... drawings, bill of quantities etc.
> 
> I would say what a loss assessor brings to the table is an inside knowledge of the insurance industry, he/she would have regular dealings with the Insurance adjusters and over a period of time gets to know them (if not, then they must not have much work). I suppose this is why many people wonder if they need an assessor as the assessor gets paid by the insurance company and the issue of proving the negociations were genuine is difficult unless you are actually sitting in on them.... for many its seen as a game that both parties just play out and I think thats where hetty is coming from.
> 
> As said, if you know your rights and have the stomach to argue with Loss Adjusters, then go for it by all means. However if couldnt be bothered then a loss assessor is your ideal port of call.



In the event that the Insurance company is insisting in reinstating, then the Loss Adjuster does not really have a very significant role to play so there is very little merit in arguing with him/her. 

Whilst traditionally, the role of the Loss Adjuster was seen as being impartial, this over the years has been eroded to a huge extent and Loss Adjusters are more and more working under the express instructions of the insurance companies. 

It is very likely not the Loss Adjusters that are insisting on using a particular builder, it is the insurance companies....two in particular that I am aware of....thankfully most insurers are moving away from MRN ( managed network repair) builders as guess what?....it wasn't working.

If the policy states that the insurers can indemnify by reinstatement, then unless a Loss Assessor can convince a court or the ombudsman that Insurers are acting outside of the policy, then I really don't see how a Loss Assessor can be of much benefit to the OP in this instance. Insurers have had these rights upheld by the Ombudsman in the past and going to court is a huge financial risk to the OP...intact, in past cases, Loss Assessor have been criticised by the ombudsman for obstructing and frustrating an insurance company builder from doing the reinstatement when Insurers have insisted upon it.

My initial advise to the OP stands...let the insurance company instruct their builder to do it.....but insist that in accordance with policy cover that professional fees for reinstatement is paid to her choice of Architect/Engineer/ Surveyor who will make sure that the repairs are carried out in accordance with the building regulations and to the appropriate standard.


----------



## ryanline79 (26 Mar 2013)

Hi, I worked in the insurance industry for a number of years and unfortunately they really aren't impartial. 

In your case I would recommend using someone to supervise the works as above and have a detailed specification for the scope of works agreed before the builder starts.

However I also wonder why you would have to replace radiators due to smoke damage. They are a sealed system and smoke would not get into them internally. 

In other cases where the reinstatement clause is not being invoked then I would probably recommend the use of a good loss assessor. However from my experience there are a lot of poor assessors out there also who really don't add any value to proceedings.


----------



## hettyhoop (2 Apr 2013)

Thanks for all your advice and comments 

Claimsman you seem to have the most realistic point of view given what I have learnt myself in the past few months..
I have recently made contact with another family in a similar situation as myself but  they have discovered that the builders that the insurance company recommend  ( one of whom is the same as our builder) are up to their neck in debt and it's a real issue that the builder may go out of business during their repairs. How can the insurance company stand over a builder who is a risk, I certainly wish I didn't have to use them?

As regards the assessors, It may well be that they are useful for negotiating but this isn't about money this is about making sure the proper materials are replaced like for like and this is where correct supervision will be necessary by a professional in the building trade.

In the insurance company's haste to cut costs they appear to have completely forgotten their customers.

As regards the famous radiators, I have a serious concern that the radiators can't be cleaned sufficently to get rid of the disgusting sticky soot that is in the accordion style backing of the radiator . Again in my research I have come across a family who returned to their repaired home and as soon as they turned on the heating the smell returned. The stress caused by this event clearly has created a fear of the smell being in the house after we return home.

All I want is to return to our home with the minimum of stress before during and after the repairs. I am afraid this isn't possible thanks to the process my insurance is insisting on using. I understood insurance was there to remove the hassle in fact all it has done is make it worse.


----------



## Ordinary Man (3 Apr 2013)

Claimsman said:


> thankfully most insurers are moving away from MRN ( managed network repair) builders as guess what?....it wasn't working.



I wonder is this due to legal issues ? if an insurance company insists on using their builder and latent defects arise, could they be held responsible? (especially if said builder has ceased to trade).

I have heard that the homebond / pyrite saga is making a lot of people sit up and take notice. Builders cutting costs in order to meet some insurance companies xactimate generated scope could well have a rebound effect on the insurance company, am I right?

I agree about recommending the OP uses a professional to oversee the work, but who is ultimately responsible if it ends up in court further down the line ? is it the builder who will have long gone or the insurance company who guaranteed his work or maybe the poor sod who was brought in to oversee the work?


----------



## Claimsman (3 Apr 2013)

Ordinary Man said:


> I wonder is this due to legal issues ? if an insurance company insists on using their builder and latent defects arise, could they be held responsible? (especially if said builder has ceased to trade).
> 
> I have heard that the homebond / pyrite saga is making a lot of people sit up and take notice. Builders cutting costs in order to meet some insurance companies xactimate generated scope could well have a rebound effect on the insurance company, am I right?
> 
> I agree about recommending the OP uses a professional to oversee the work, but who is ultimately responsible if it ends up in court further down the line ? is it the builder who will have long gone or the insurance company who guaranteed his work or maybe the poor sod who was brought in to oversee the work?



The reason why most insurers have moved away from it is because using MRNs has caused a lot of hassle and resulted in claims being revisited for snags and unrelated issues that insurers were finding themselves stuck with...I suspect that they have not got the savings that they had hoped using MRNs would achieve.However, two companies in particular are persevering with it, so, as I have said before, check out what policy you are buying.

The poor sod who was brought in to oversee the work will be a highly qualified professional who will be registered in accordance with the 2007 building control act and who will have PI insurance in place. If this person is any good at their job, they will not certify shoddy work by the builder. My view is that it is likely that if the insurers insist on appointing a builder and a screw up happens, then, it will be the insurers who will end up carrying the can.

Finally, to the OP, if there are any concerns as to the financial viability of the insurers contractor, either insist that a bond be provided or alternatively, get a written undertaking from the insurers who are insisting on the work that in the event that the builder goes bang, that insurers will at their own cost meet all additional costs that arise in completing the contract....yes, insist on a formal contract ( not between the builder and you, but between the Insurers and you)with provision for damages arising from delays etc....your Architect/surveyor/Engineer will advise you on this.


----------

