What is covered under home insurance

H

henry

Registered User
Messages
70
I have a pipe running through my garden which has cracked and is discharging water. The pipe is buried quite far down and will need to be replaced.

My insurers have conceded liability but we have not agreed on what is covered.

My insurers are saying that all excavation costs, including the replacement pipe cost, are not covered.
I am saying that the actual cost of the pipe would not be covered but that associated excavation costs should be covered.

Any opinion on who is right ?

thanks
 
IMHO, damage caused is covered, cost of excavating is not, unless you have 'trace and access' cover, in which case you might have cover up to a certain limit
 
This sounds odd and wrong.

Our house sewer pipe developed a break. Roots from a tree strangled the pipe and cracked it. I actually found the break myself as the pipe was not too deep.

To repair the pipe the old broken section had to be removed and a new section put in place. This involved digging out soil around the broken section to access the pipe properly and to back fill once the repair was complete. As I stood over the area that I had excavated, with the loss adjuster, he confirmed that all of the work that I have just described was covered. They paid accordingly and in full.

If the pipe in OP's case is one for which they are legally responsible (e.g. their sewer pipe) the breakage of that pipe is an insured peril and all of the direct costs involved in repairing it including replacing the broken section should be covered. The excavation required to get to the break and the logical back filling are directly connected to the process of repairing the insured event.

Years ago our mains water pipe from the street broke near the front gate. The plumber had to break the ground and remove the soil to reach the break, replace the broken section, back fill the hole and reinstate the concrete. All of that was covered. So, what is the difference in principle with OP's situation.

I am very sorry to say it but the level of incompetence that I have encountered with some insurance companies in recent years is truly dreadful and that extends particularly to interpretation of policy cover. I would expect full indemnity in this case and insist on insurers explaining how the full repair is not covered i.e. show you where the policy wording has the restrictions they suggest as distinct from their interpretation of the policy wording !

It might be worth OP's while retaining his own loss adjuster to advise as I suspect that the repair costs might be large and proper advice / representation may be worth it to deal with the insurers.
 
DirectDevil said:
This sounds odd and wrong.

Our house sewer pipe developed a break. Roots from a tree strangled the pipe and cracked it. I actually found the break myself as the pipe was not too deep.

To repair the pipe the old broken section had to be removed and a new section put in place. This involved digging out soil around the broken section to access the pipe properly and to back fill once the repair was complete. As I stood over the area that I had excavated, with the loss adjuster, he confirmed that all of the work that I have just described was covered. They paid accordingly and in full.

If the pipe in OP's case is one for which they are legally responsible (e.g. their sewer pipe) the breakage of that pipe is an insured peril and all of the direct costs involved in repairing it including replacing the broken section should be covered. The excavation required to get to the break and the logical back filling are directly connected to the process of repairing the insured event.

Years ago our mains water pipe from the street broke near the front gate. The plumber had to break the ground and remove the soil to reach the break, replace the broken section, back fill the hole and reinstate the concrete. All of that was covered. So, what is the difference in principle with OP's situation.

I am very sorry to say it but the level of incompetence that I have encountered with some insurance companies in recent years is truly dreadful and that extends particularly to interpretation of policy cover. I would expect full indemnity in this case and insist on insurers explaining how the full repair is not covered i.e. show you where the policy wording has the restrictions they suggest as distinct from their interpretation of the policy wording !

It might be worth OP's while retaining his own loss adjuster to advise as I suspect that the repair costs might be large and proper advice / representation may be worth it to deal with the insurers.
Click to expand...

The difference is likely that without knowing what the cause of the pipe cracking is, the replacement of it would not be covered. As it could be conceivably considered wear and tear. Your original example stated that the roots of the tree cause the problem.
 
Most loss assessor will not charge for basic advice like this case.
They charge between 4 and 8% for looking after a claim from start to finish.I have used them over the years and normally they more than cover their costs.That's the business they are in,so they take all the hassle out of the process.
 
Clonback said:
Most loss assessor will not charge for basic advice like this case.
They charge between 4 and 8% for looking after a claim from start to finish.I have used them over the years and normally they more than cover their costs.That's the business they are in,so they take all the hassle out of the process.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt expect them to give you any advice without a cost. Its professional advice and they immediately become responsible from a professional indemnity perspective.

however my initial point was that OP should be we aware an assessor carries a cost.
 
peteb said:
The difference is likely that without knowing what the cause of the pipe cracking is, the replacement of it would not be covered. As it could be conceivably considered wear and tear. Your original example stated that the roots of the tree cause the problem.
Click to expand...

Fair point. Understood. Would it make any difference if there was accidental damage cover ?
 
No. Because again if it looks like wear and tear it wouldnt be covered. Accidental damage usually helps where it doesnt fit elsewhere like gutters damaged by heavy snow sitting in them. But there cant really be accidental damage to an underground pipe unless you hit it with a spade whilst digging!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top