Buildings Insurance after completion
Discussion
Inbetween the mortgage valuation and completion, a heavy hailstorm has damaged a conservatory roof (at least a dozen holes through the top layer of the polycarb roof panels). The vendor didn't notice and the buyer only noticed on the day they moved in.
Clearly, the buyer can't claim on their new insurance, as it wasn't in force at the time of the damage.
Can the vendor claim on their (now cancelled) insurance, on the basis that the cover was in force at the time of the damage?
We know exactly when the damage occured as I have time-stamped photos of the hailstorm. It was pretty epic and I know of several conservatories that have suffered similar damage.
Any thoughts? Is this one for Twig, or is he only motor insurance?
Clearly, the buyer can't claim on their new insurance, as it wasn't in force at the time of the damage.
Can the vendor claim on their (now cancelled) insurance, on the basis that the cover was in force at the time of the damage?
We know exactly when the damage occured as I have time-stamped photos of the hailstorm. It was pretty epic and I know of several conservatories that have suffered similar damage.
Any thoughts? Is this one for Twig, or is he only motor insurance?
Apologies - didn't make it clear enough....
The damage occurred before exchange (by about two weeks). Buildings insurance was taken out by the purchaser at the time of exchange.
The reason I mentioned the valuation was that the damage happened after the valuer visit, so couldn't have been picked up at that point.
The damage occurred before exchange (by about two weeks). Buildings insurance was taken out by the purchaser at the time of exchange.
The reason I mentioned the valuation was that the damage happened after the valuer visit, so couldn't have been picked up at that point.
Nigel_O said:
Apologies - didn't make it clear enough....
The damage occurred before exchange (by about two weeks). Buildings insurance was taken out by the purchaser at the time of exchange.
The reason I mentioned the valuation was that the damage happened after the valuer visit, so couldn't have been picked up at that point.
In general the vendor wouldn't be liable.The damage occurred before exchange (by about two weeks). Buildings insurance was taken out by the purchaser at the time of exchange.
The reason I mentioned the valuation was that the damage happened after the valuer visit, so couldn't have been picked up at that point.
As you said he wasn't aware of the damage and the purchaser is responsible for making sure he knows what's he's buying. If he wasn't aware of the damage he either wouldn't have been there or its pretty minor.
It's a really unclear area and will depend on the specifics of the contract.
If he is held liable then his buildings cover should kick in, even if the policy is now not in force.
Nigel_O said:
Can the vendor claim on their (now cancelled) insurance, on the basis that the cover was in force at the time of the damage?
There are two types of insurance policy. The vast majority, including personal insurances such as home and motor, are on a "claims occurring basis", so the policy had to be in force when the claim occurred. It doesn't matter if it's reported after the policy has cancelled. A few policies (professional indemnity is one) are often on a "claims made basis". The policy has to be in force when the claim is made as opposed to when it occurred.
But as others have said, if exchange had taken place, you were responsible and should have had insurance. Even if the vendor still had cover in place, they are under no obligation to use it to bail you out of something that's down to you.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But as others have said, if exchange had taken place, you were responsible and should have had insurance. Even if the vendor still had cover in place, they are under no obligation to use it to bail you out of something that's down to you.
Everything you said is correct but to isolate this point.The damage occured before exchange.
So if the vendor says "it must have been there before" then the purchaser is a bit snookered.
I'm selling a house with a damaged wall
I've not been asked about it but it's there for anyone to see.
I wouldn't expect to be asked to be paid for repair if the purchaser notices it after completion.
JeffreyD said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But as others have said, if exchange had taken place, you were responsible and should have had insurance. Even if the vendor still had cover in place, they are under no obligation to use it to bail you out of something that's down to you.
Everything you said is correct but to isolate this point.The damage occured before exchange.
So if the vendor says "it must have been there before" then the purchaser is a bit snookered.
I'm selling a house with a damaged wall
I've not been asked about it but it's there for anyone to see.
I wouldn't expect to be asked to be paid for repair if the purchaser notices it after completion.
There are some confused comments on this thread.
Assuming the contract incorporated the standard property conditions without heavy changes (and if it wasn’t a new build, which sounds very unlikely itself from the circumstances, then I’d give it perhaps 99.9% chance that it would have been the SPCs) then the position is simple, and clear - none of this is the vendor’s responsibility, or problem, in any way, shape or form.
To expand, if the damage occurred before exchange of contracts then it was already present at the key point in time, and the buyer purchased with that disrepair present. Just like any other disrepair - e.g. peeling paint, rotting woodwork, missing roof tiles. And just like those other things, it is not for the vendor to do anything about putting them right.
Whether the damage was there before or after any viewing, offer being made, mortgage valuation, buyer’s survey or anything else is entirely irrelevant - if the buyer chose not to reinspect the property just before exchange then that is on them.
If the damage occurred after exchange, the property was at the risk of the buyer at the time. If the buyer did not arrange insurance from exchange then as somebody else has said, that is their own problem (but they should be very thankful it wasn’t something more serious that happened, such as a fire).
My only suggestions to the buyer would be:
(1) check that your conveyancer did tell you that you needed to insure from exchange, as they should have (because if not, you might a bone you can pick with them); and
(2) assuming they did, ask them what the position is (to make sure that the contract wasn’t on funky terms that might change any of the above).
Assuming the contract incorporated the standard property conditions without heavy changes (and if it wasn’t a new build, which sounds very unlikely itself from the circumstances, then I’d give it perhaps 99.9% chance that it would have been the SPCs) then the position is simple, and clear - none of this is the vendor’s responsibility, or problem, in any way, shape or form.
To expand, if the damage occurred before exchange of contracts then it was already present at the key point in time, and the buyer purchased with that disrepair present. Just like any other disrepair - e.g. peeling paint, rotting woodwork, missing roof tiles. And just like those other things, it is not for the vendor to do anything about putting them right.
Whether the damage was there before or after any viewing, offer being made, mortgage valuation, buyer’s survey or anything else is entirely irrelevant - if the buyer chose not to reinspect the property just before exchange then that is on them.
If the damage occurred after exchange, the property was at the risk of the buyer at the time. If the buyer did not arrange insurance from exchange then as somebody else has said, that is their own problem (but they should be very thankful it wasn’t something more serious that happened, such as a fire).
My only suggestions to the buyer would be:
(1) check that your conveyancer did tell you that you needed to insure from exchange, as they should have (because if not, you might a bone you can pick with them); and
(2) assuming they did, ask them what the position is (to make sure that the contract wasn’t on funky terms that might change any of the above).
bladebloke said:
none of this is the vendor’s responsibility, or problem, in any way, shape or form.
That sound like a pretty definitive answer, and not unexpected However, the question is - could the vendor claim on his (now lapsed) buildings insurance, on the basis that the damage occurred while the cover was in place?
I accept that he probably doesn’t HAVE to, but he might want to help out if he can
Nigel_O said:
That sound like a pretty definitive answer, and not unexpected
However, the question is - could the vendor claim on his (now lapsed) buildings insurance, on the basis that the damage occurred while the cover was in place?
I accept that he probably doesn’t HAVE to, but he might want to help out if he can
In theory, yes - they could claim on their insurance as the policy was in force when the damage occurred. May cause the insurers to scratch their head, but I used to present household insurance claims often to prior policies (or sometimes a few policies prior) in a previous job.However, the question is - could the vendor claim on his (now lapsed) buildings insurance, on the basis that the damage occurred while the cover was in place?
I accept that he probably doesn’t HAVE to, but he might want to help out if he can
Edited to add - they would need to present it, the buyers couldn't.
Nigel_O said:
That sound like a pretty definitive answer, and not unexpected
However, the question is - could the vendor claim on his (now lapsed) buildings insurance, on the basis that the damage occurred while the cover was in place?
I accept that he probably doesn’t HAVE to, but he might want to help out if he can
An interesting question, and not one I know the answer to. However, the question is - could the vendor claim on his (now lapsed) buildings insurance, on the basis that the damage occurred while the cover was in place?
I accept that he probably doesn’t HAVE to, but he might want to help out if he can
Genuine question to anyone who might know the answer (perhaps Twig?): On a typical buildings insurance policy, does the claimant have to have suffered a loss in order to claim?
The reason I ask is that in this case, the previous owner suffered no loss - they no longer own the property and sold it for the same price as they would have done had the damage not occurred (they must have done because apparently neither party knew about it).
However, practical answers for OP as follows:
- if you are the previous owner and are being asked to claim, tell the buyer to piss right off - why on earth should you think about having a claim on your history when it is simply not your problem?
- if you are the new owner and are thinking of asking the person you bought from to claim, then even if they might have a basis on which they are able to claim, expect an answer along the lines of the one just above :-)
bladebloke said:
An interesting question, and not one I know the answer to.
Genuine question to anyone who might know the answer (perhaps Twig?): On a typical buildings insurance policy, does the claimant have to have suffered a loss in order to claim?
The reason I ask is that in this case, the previous owner suffered no loss - they no longer own the property and sold it for the same price as they would have done had the damage not occurred (they must have done because apparently neither party knew about it).
However, practical answers for OP as follows:
- if you are the previous owner and are being asked to claim, tell the buyer to piss right off - why on earth should you think about having a claim on your history when it is simply not your problem?
- if you are the new owner and are thinking of asking the person you bought from to claim, then even if they might have a basis on which they are able to claim, expect an answer along the lines of the one just above :-)
Yes you have to have suffered a loss.Genuine question to anyone who might know the answer (perhaps Twig?): On a typical buildings insurance policy, does the claimant have to have suffered a loss in order to claim?
The reason I ask is that in this case, the previous owner suffered no loss - they no longer own the property and sold it for the same price as they would have done had the damage not occurred (they must have done because apparently neither party knew about it).
However, practical answers for OP as follows:
- if you are the previous owner and are being asked to claim, tell the buyer to piss right off - why on earth should you think about having a claim on your history when it is simply not your problem?
- if you are the new owner and are thinking of asking the person you bought from to claim, then even if they might have a basis on which they are able to claim, expect an answer along the lines of the one just above :-)
In theory the place could have burned to the ground pre exchange and had they exchanged the buyer would still be liable to complete the contract.
Considering the sums involved the whole process is remarkably lax.
bladebloke said:
An interesting question, and not one I know the answer to.
Genuine question to anyone who might know the answer (perhaps Twig?): On a typical buildings insurance policy, does the claimant have to have suffered a loss in order to claim?
The reason I ask is that in this case, the previous owner suffered no loss - they no longer own the property and sold it for the same price as they would have done had the damage not occurred (they must have done because apparently neither party knew about it).
However, practical answers for OP as follows:
- if you are the previous owner and are being asked to claim, tell the buyer to piss right off - why on earth should you think about having a claim on your history when it is simply not your problem?
- if you are the new owner and are thinking of asking the person you bought from to claim, then even if they might have a basis on which they are able to claim, expect an answer along the lines of the one just above :-)
Yes, you need to have a financial interest in something to insure it. And have to prove you have suffered a sudden and unexpected loss (insurance is a contract of mutual upmost faith). The insurance indemnifies for that loss.Genuine question to anyone who might know the answer (perhaps Twig?): On a typical buildings insurance policy, does the claimant have to have suffered a loss in order to claim?
The reason I ask is that in this case, the previous owner suffered no loss - they no longer own the property and sold it for the same price as they would have done had the damage not occurred (they must have done because apparently neither party knew about it).
However, practical answers for OP as follows:
- if you are the previous owner and are being asked to claim, tell the buyer to piss right off - why on earth should you think about having a claim on your history when it is simply not your problem?
- if you are the new owner and are thinking of asking the person you bought from to claim, then even if they might have a basis on which they are able to claim, expect an answer along the lines of the one just above :-)
In this scenario, the property owner did suffer a loss. He just wasn't aware of it. His roof was damaged (assuming the damage is accepted as sudden and unexpected) and to put it back into a pre-loss condition, it would cost money (i.e. he would be financially out of pocket). The fact it wasn't noticed and exchange has now happened is a little grey - I would be interested how an insurer would handle it. I suspect they would cover.
My experience of claims like this relate to drains. it's all a little different now, but if we identified tree roots and the policy was quite new, we would pass the claim back to the previous insurer. Same as if the house has just been bought, we would approach the previous owners insurers. Claims were generally settled smoothly (or sometimes passed back to an insurer a couple policies back if obviously very old damage.
FCA has put more emphasis on settling claims (well drainage for sure) that have been discovered within the current insurers policy period unless very extreme (policy a couple days old and years of root growth as an example).
Subsidence is different - there is a protocol to share costs with previous insurers etc.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff