Should home insurance pay for pre-existing but unknown loss?

[Bennet]

Hi Pistonheads,

We moved in to a house in May. In July we noticed damp in the cellar. This was traced to degradation and damage to the (100+ year old ) drains that run under our driveway, largely due to the ingress of tree roots.

Repairs cost around £8000.00. I tried to claim on on our home insurance for this. They looked at everything and rejected the claim on the basis that "the damage will have been done before the inception of the policy."

Is this normal practice?

I don't claim that the tree roots suddenly attacked the drains since May, but if we'd owned the house 50 years, would we now have to forensically work out exactly what year the damage was done and claim on the insurance we had during that particular year?

Or would you normally expect insurance to pay out in the year the damage came to light?

We did our due dilligence on the house before purchase with a full building survey. We did not survey the drains, but there was nothing that suggested we ought to, and I don't think a drain survey is usually undertaken by prospective home buyers, so this doesn't seem negligent to me.

So are they trying to fob me off, or is this just hard luck?

Thanks.

[s2bounce]

Home insurance policies will have an exclusion something along the lines of "Loss or damage arising from:
– gradual causes
– wear and tear"

Generally speaking home insurance policies are not designed to cover known existing issues or damage caused by gradual causes.

[Bennet]

s2bounce said:

Home insurance policies will have an exclusion something along the lines of "Loss or damage arising from:
– gradual causes
– wear and tear"

Generally speaking home insurance policies are not designed to cover known existing issues or damage caused by gradual causes.

Completely agree, but that's not the basis on which they rejected the claim.
(Also - tree root damage to underground services is, I believe, covered.)

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I think there's an ABI agreement that the current insurer will deal with any subsidence claim, and then it's down to them to contact all previous insurers for a contribution if required. But I don't think that agreement extends to non subsidence claims.

Did you have a survey done. Could you have any comeback against them?

[Ed/L152]

When we noticed damp in a house we'd just moved into we claimed the repair work back from the surveyor who had missed it.

The surveyor is a small local independent and agreed to pay for the work without anything more than a few letters and having the boss around to see for himself. We didn't think to claim from the house insurance, and the surveyor didn't suggest it either.

[Bennet]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I think there's an ABI agreement that the current insurer will deal with any subsidence claim, and then it's down to them to contact all previous insurers for a contribution if required. But I don't think that agreement extends to non subsidence claims.

Did you have a survey done. Could you have any comeback against them?

One of the first things the survey says is "no drain survey has been carried out". We could have paid for a drain survey before purchase, but there was no sign of any problems at the time, and as far as I'm aware, drain surveys are not usually carried out as a matter of course by prospective buyers.

I'm willing to take this on the chin if that's how it goes, but I'm not totally convinced by the reasoning they're relying on.

[Ed/L152]

Bennet said:

One of the first things the survey says is "no drain survey has been carried out". We could have paid for a drain survey before purchase, but there was no sign of any problems at the time, and as far as I'm aware, drain surveys are not usually carried out as a matter of course by prospective buyers.

I'm willing to take this on the chin if that's how it goes, but I'm not totally convinced by the reasoning they're relying on.

A regular survey should have picked up on damp in the walls, however?

[Bennet]

Ed/L152 said:

Bennet said:

One of the first things the survey says is "no drain survey has been carried out". We could have paid for a drain survey before purchase, but there was no sign of any problems at the time, and as far as I'm aware, drain surveys are not usually carried out as a matter of course by prospective buyers.

I'm willing to take this on the chin if that's how it goes, but I'm not totally convinced by the reasoning they're relying on.

A regular survey should have picked up on damp in the walls, however?

Yep, they did, that's my poor description of the story.
There was some dampness in the cellar which was put down to "general" damp issues in a 120 year old cellar, as one might expect. We surveyed the drains when we experienced pooling of water on the cellar floor after a period of heavy rain, which wasn't the case at the time of the survey.

[s2bounce]

When did you tell the insurer you discovered the damage?
What has caused the damage?
What are you looking to claim for?
If the insurer are relying on the exclusion that it was pre existing then they can only decline the claim if you had told them you found damp damage to the property prior to the policy starting or if it was blatantly obvious the damage was on-going for sometime and would have been visible/noticeable to anyone.

[IJWS15]

Yu bought a house that is, I guess, 100 years old or more that has a cellar without getting a full survey . . . . . .

Now you want an insurance policy you took out to pay for something that was present and a survey would have spotted.

I presume that, due to the very dry summer, you didn't ask if there was any history of damp in the cellar since it could have been masked by vendorsprior to sale.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

s2bounce said:

If the insurer are relying on the exclusion that it was pre existing then they can only decline the claim if you had told them you found damp damage to the property prior to the policy starting or if it was blatantly obvious the damage was on-going for sometime and would have been visible/noticeable to anyone.

No, the can deny the claim if they conclude, correctly, that the damage is as a result of something that happened prior to inception, even though it wasn't discovered until after inception.

[s2bounce]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

s2bounce said:

If the insurer are relying on the exclusion that it was pre existing then they can only decline the claim if you had told them you found damp damage to the property prior to the policy starting or if it was blatantly obvious the damage was on-going for sometime and would have been visible/noticeable to anyone.

No, the can deny the claim if they conclude, correctly, that the damage is as a result of something that happened prior to inception, even though it wasn't discovered until after inception.

Depends on what OP is claiming for, if for example he is claiming for water damage to his property (walls) and he only found the damage more recently then they could not rely on that exclusion.

[Ed/L152]

Bennet said:

Yep, they did, that's my poor description of the story.
There was some dampness in the cellar which was put down to "general" damp issues in a 120 year old cellar, as one might expect. We surveyed the drains when we experienced pooling of water on the cellar floor after a period of heavy rain, which wasn't the case at the time of the survey.

Ah okay, thank you. Did the surveyor recommend a drain survey? They may be at fault if not.

[Bennet]

s2bounce said:

When did you tell the insurer you discovered the damage?
What has caused the damage?
What are you looking to claim for?
If the insurer are relying on the exclusion that it was pre existing then they can only decline the claim if you had told them you found damp damage to the property prior to the policy starting or if it was blatantly obvious the damage was on-going for sometime and would have been visible/noticeable to anyone.

I was only looking to claim for the drain repairs. There is no damage to the house.

All I am really asking is, is it normal to reject a claim on the basis that damage was pre-existing, even if it wasn't known about or obvious to a reasonable person before the policy was purchased?

To me, the due dilligence on a house is
a. full building survey (which we did)
b. specialist surveys for any areas where the house has obvious issues

This drains issue wasn't obvious, thus, we didn't pay for a specialist drain survey. I just want to know if their reasoning is standard practice, or if they are trying to fob me off and hope I don't challenge it.

[Bennet]

Ed/L152 said:

Ah okay, thank you. Did the surveyor recommend a drain survey? They may be at fault if not.

Not verbally, to my recollection, and not in writing. To be honest, I'm not really looking to blame the surveyor. I don't find any fault with them.

I'm just not sure if insurers are liable for damage when it comes to light, or when it occurs.

[s2bounce]

Bennet said:

I was only looking to claim for the drain repairs. There is no damage to the house.

All I am really asking is, is it normal to reject a claim on the basis that damage was pre-existing, even if it wasn't known about or obvious to a reasonable person before the policy was purchased?

To me, the due dilligence on a house is
a. full building survey (which we did)
b. specialist surveys for any areas where the house has obvious issues

This drains issue wasn't obvious, thus, we didn't pay for a specialist drain survey. I just want to know if their reasoning is standard practice, or if they are trying to fob me off and hope I don't challenge it.

So far from what I can gather is that the drains have been damaged by tree roots.

For me to advise you if the insurer is fair in declining your claim, I would need to know
1 - the policy inception date
2 - the date you told the insurer you found the damage
3 - the date you purchased the property
4 - the day you moved in to the property
5 - what damage did you first find to your property and what action did you take when you found this damage.

[Bennet]

s2bounce said:

So far from what I can gather is that the drains have been damaged by tree roots.

For me to advise you if the insurer is fair in declining your claim, I would need to know
1 - the policy inception date
2 - the date you told the insurer you found the damage
3 - the date you purchased the property
4 - the day you moved in to the property
5 - what damage did you first find to your property and what action did you take when you found this damage.

Ok - I assume you'll forgive me for not providing exact dates. I'm at work and I don't have it all to hand. Here we go:

For me to advise you if the insurer is fair in declining your claim, I would need to know
1 - the policy inception date = about two days before completion - insurance was a requirement for our mortgage
2 - the date you told the insurer you found the damage - We told them in early September. We didn't "find damage" as such. Water began pooling in the cellar around July after heavy rain. It had been relatively dry up to this point. We enquired with a builder about tanking the cellar. The builder advised we have a drain survey. We had the survey in the same month, and the work was carried out as soon as possible once we discovered the problem.
3 - the date you purchased the property = Mid May 18
4 - the day you moved in to the property = the same week we bought it
5 - what damage did you first find to your property and what action did you take when you found this damage. - As above.

The only damage is to the drains themselves, not the house.

Thanks.

[s2bounce]

Bennet said:

Ok - I assume you'll forgive me for not providing exact dates. I'm at work and I don't have it all to hand. Here we go:

For me to advise you if the insurer is fair in declining your claim, I would need to know
1 - the policy inception date = about two days before completion - insurance was a requirement for our mortgage
2 - the date you told the insurer you found the damage - We told them in early September. We didn't "find damage" as such. Water began pooling in the cellar around July after heavy rain. It had been relatively dry up to this point. We enquired with a builder about tanking the cellar. The builder advised we have a drain survey. We had the survey in the same month, and the work was carried out as soon as possible once we discovered the problem.
3 - the date you purchased the property = Mid May 18
4 - the day you moved in to the property = the same week we bought it
5 - what damage did you first find to your property and what action did you take when you found this damage. - As above.

The only damage is to the drains themselves, not the house.

Thanks.

I would say it is unfair for them to exclude damage caused to your drains based on the date you moved into the property (July) and finding the damage (September).

Majority of home insurance policy's have cover as standard to underground services such as drains pipes and cables which service the risk address.

I would raise this as a complaint to the insurer and ask they consider the claim under the policy and instruct their contractor to carry out the repairs and compensate you for the incorrectly declining the claim.

I would argue there was no signs of damage to your property up until September and in the time from you purchasing the property the roots would have grown enough to have broken the drain pipes, if parts of the drain have been damaged other than tree root damage your insurer should accept it is accidental if they cannot establish the cause of damage unless it is blatantly obvious the damage is as a result of wear and tear damage.

You can always approach the FOS if they continue to decline the claim and they can review in full.

Who is your insurer anyways?

[The Surveyor]

Bennet said:

Ed/L152 said:

Ah okay, thank you. Did the surveyor recommend a drain survey? They may be at fault if not.

Not verbally, to my recollection, and not in writing. To be honest, I'm not really looking to blame the surveyor. I don't find any fault with them.

I'm just not sure if insurers are liable for damage when it comes to light, or when it occurs.

How much worse is the damp in the basement than it was when you first bought the property, or when the surveyor visited.

Tree root damage into a drain doesn't happen overnight and if there was damp recorded in the survey which didn't put you off going through with the purchase, has it got worse? It's not unusual for a seller to do a cosmetic cover-up, but your surveyor should be weary of that and should have followed-through with a basic observation what could be causing the damp, and that should be covered in their report with recommendations to check the drain and to check if there is a warranty on any basement tanking or waterproofing. You're not paying a surveyor to just tell you the wall is damp, they should be telling you why and what remedial action is needed.

Why do you hold your insurer liable for something you have paid a professional to record?

[Durzel]

Bennet said:

Not verbally, to my recollection, and not in writing. To be honest, I'm not really looking to blame the surveyor. I don't find any fault with them.

I'm just not sure if insurers are liable for damage when it comes to light, or when it occurs.

Is the surveyor not the expert in the scenario though? I'd argue it is very much a surveyor's job to point out things they are professionally experienced in that a buyer may have no clue about, particularly if rectification work could run into thousands.

What I mean is - even if the surveyor didn't inspect the drains themselves I would certainly expect them to say "in my experience of 100 year old houses with cellars, you should check the drains" or something similar.