I have no issue with (a) - and have discharged my responsibilities in that respect. (b) *may* also be correct in principal. However, the issue I have here is that they want to get in and out and do the cheapest job possible (to my detriment). They have contracted the engineers to propose a remediation plan - and to oversee the works. I have not been given any input into whom was selected. Furthermore, as part of the exchanges that have occurred to date, they keep insisting that their engineers are 'independent' when they carry out practically all such works for the insurer throughout Ireland on an ongoing basis. They are paid directly by the insurer. During the course of events, they refused to answer my queries and said they would only provide answers to an engineer acting on my behalf. Furthermore, they insisted on a site meeting - provided I had an engineer attend who represented me on the matter. Lastly, they asked to have direct contact with my engineer going forward to finalise the scope of works. Surely the wording of the policy can be interpreted as such that they are obliged to cover these costs? =>Is it not a case where:
(a) they do NOT cover the cost of engineer PREPARING the claim,
but
(b) they will cover the supervision costs of the works to be done?
In theory it sounds the same as set out in this structural (as opposed to home) insurance policy - save for what I've articulated above and the wording of the policy (above) in relation to fees.Ravima said:this is standard in all home insurance policies.
I have had some initial advice on the matter. I'll have to think a bit harder before committing to going this route (and of course, it depends on the insurer...albeit they have a plethora of cases in the courts - they play hard ball). That said, I'd imagine this should be a circuit court case as opposed to High Court (given that the threshold has been raised to €75k). Still an expensive route to take if things go south - but not to the same extent as High Court.if there is NO arbitration condition, which is not uncommon, but rare, then you can go direct to High Court for direction/decision. Be aware though, the costs of this procedure are horrendous and you will need very deep pockets indeed, if are on the losing side!
Firstly, thanks for taking the time out to respond - and no problem ref. being frank - that's what I'd prefer - I don't need anything sugar-coated.I'm going to be brutally frank here.
Some background info. It's taken 2 years to get them to this point. The irony is that 2 years ago I would have settled for a lot less remediation work (as my claim was submitted on the basis of non-invasive investigation/engineers report). My engineer suggested a fix - but they rejected the claim outright (despite render being described in the policy document as being a structural element - and an admission that there was render failure - they rejected the claim on the basis that I had not proven how water had ingressed from the outer leaf to the inner leaf and internal surface of the wall (inside the dwelling).In my opinion, you need to step back a bit. If the insurers are undertaking to do the repairs, with your engineer supervising - what's the problem? ...... Can you talk with your engineer, that s/he can try to agree his fee as a supervising fee, which is covered?
I'm very much involved. The amount of correspondence that has passed each way has been horrendous. However, it's for good reason. I'm not going to accept an inequitable solution to a loss suffered that was not of my making and which to my mind is covered under the contract/policy document.Are you getting too involved with details of the policy wordings and not seeing the bigger picture of getting the damage fixed?
Their engineers mandate is to get in and get out for the smallest investment possible. With that, the insurer is telling me that I have no recourse directly to them in the event that I face a similar loss due to the failure of the specific works that they have carried out (i'm not talking about a full renewal of the policy - just cover in the event that the work that's carried out is not up to standard).All seem to want to resolve the problem.
Thank you, Ravima. It looks like at the very least I'll be putting the 'independence' of their engineers to the legal test. Either I'll be on the hook for that or if not, then I'll also be challenging another aspect of matters (that's currently a point of conflict between my engineer and theirs).Noted.
Good luck in your quest, I hope you get the resolution you want.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?