Listed Building Insurance

[Penners]

I've taken note of a number of comments that cropped up during 2007 on the subject of insuring a listed building. I am therefore thinking of abandoning the bog standard "do-it-yerself-online" type of insurer, for fear that I am under-insuring our house and contents, and that it may prove very difficult to get any property damage reinstated with the materials, or to the standard, that would be required by the CO.

I am now in the process of getting quotes. I've talked to NFU and the PPUK partner company. Does anyone have any suggestions for other insurers who specialise in period/ listed buildings?

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

[Anita]

We are insured by the Historic Houses Insurance Scheme with Ecclesiastical Insurance - the small specialist broker that we use is Bruford Valance, who are based in Taunton. It's great to speak to a person who is interested in your property right away - rather than to a machine or call centre! They say they insure anything from cottages to castles!

I posted about them previously and will try and find the link - otherwise will look out the tel number for you.

Just looked up the link - not sure how to add it in - but it was posted 28 June 07. BV's telephone number is 01823 277 188 or http://www.bruford.co.uk

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Keep us posted Penners, it's quite a minefield! I reckon the small print is the key to any policy. If they can find a way of not paying out, they will and the loophole is well hidden away in the all the jargon.

 

[lordmulberry]

After a lot of research etc I'm insured with Greenbee, part of John Lewis. They have no problem with listed buildings etc and were helpful on the 'phone when I talked to them.

 

[biffvernon]

SAGA - for listed people.

 

[Pford75]

We are insured with Brit Insurance (only available via a broker).

Whoever you choose, based upon personal experience, I would insist on the insurer undertaking a 'reinstatement value' survey and them providing/agreeing with the level of cover chosen - without this, you run the risk of the insurer claiming 'underinsurance' in the event of a claim

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, that seems to be the biggest issue with this insurance malarkey. I'm with the NFU but I got the rebuilding cost figure (per m2) from a specialist valuer when I had our survey done, but it wasn't straightforward as we are c16 timber frame with c17 rubble wall and c18 chalk clunch additions.

In my (very) limited experience, it seems that the rebuild/reinstatement costs for period properties can vary quite widely and seem to be more-or-less an 'educated guesstimate', which opens the door for a dispute if a claim is ever needed.

I like pford75's suggestion of getting the insurance co to provide the necessary figures, but how many insurers will actually do this as a matter of course? Has anyone here done this, and how often is such a survey needed? On every renewal (surely not), every 5 years, 10 years?

 

[Penners]

I got the rebuilding cost figure (per m2) from a specialist valuer

FF, would you be prepared to let me know what the per m2 rebuild figure was? Probably a bit higher for yours than mine, because of the higher quality of your timber frame. But it would be useful to know the figure - either as a post or a PM, if you'd be so kind.

Any one else got a suggested per m2 figure for an oak timberframe house, please?

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Yes, we too are with Greenbee at the moment, but I don't think that I'd like to be in the position of putting them to the test!

 

[Flyfisher]

I was given a figure of £130/ft2. This is for the total footprint area (i.e. outside wall measurements) and x2 for two floors.

 

[Pford75]

how many insurers will actually do this as a matter of course? Has anyone here done this, and how often is such a survey needed? On every renewal (surely not), every 5 years, 10 years?

Not sure if (m)any do it as a matter of course. I would suggest that you say to the insurer that you are keen to ensure that you have the appropriate level of cover. If you do this in writing and they decline the opportunity to survey and simply take your figure, I think you would be in a much stronger position in the event of a claim if they tried to suggest underinsurance.

Second point is the level of cover....for the premiums which come with £1m+ of cover, it's not unreasonable to expect the insurer to do some work.

Finally, our cover increases by a certain amount each year (perhaps the RPI)...and since this 'elevator' is set by the insurer, I believe that the cover should be ok. Our survey however has asked us to inform our insurers should we undertake any significant works (such as a new kitchen, which could be expensive) as this will impact the cover

 

[Pford75]

Posted: Sat 5th Jan, 2008 5:32 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was given a figure of £130/ft2. This is for the total footprint area (i.e. outside wall measurements) and x2 for two floors.

Don't forget that you buildings cover needs to include all perimeters (fences, walls etc.), gardens, outbuildings, site clearance etc.

On our plot, we have apx. 400ft of flint walling which would not be accounted for if we just took the footprint of the house. Trees themselves (even if they don't fall on the house) can be costly to remove.

The underwriters for our insurers believe the rebuild cost (which doesn't include site clearance) for a Grade II listed building is between £1600 - £2000 per square metre.

 

[Penners]

I was given a figure of £130/ft2. This is for the total footprint area (i.e. outside wall measurements) and x2 for two floors.

Thanks for that - very interesting. A broker I've been talking to told me £200 - £225/ft2 for timberframe and £160/ft2 for conventional cavity wall masonry.

At the top end, Pford75's figure works out at £186/ft2.

There's a considerable discrepancy between all of these, and one can't help observing that the higher the figure, the higher the premium you'll pay (obviously). Hmmm...

Anyone else been quoted any figures recently?

 

[Pford75]

As an aside to the note above about 1600-2000 per sq. metre, I would add that this is heavily affected by the area of the country you live in and the availability of skilled workmen.

Our insurers had a view on what they thought builders 'should' charge for flintwork, but since they were all very busy and not short of work, what they actually charged was significantly higher....bear this in mind when assessing your cover.

All of our flintwork quotes were 20-30% more than what the loss asjuster's book said they 'should' cost. When I suggested he locate a builder who could do the work at the price he felt it should be.....he went strangely quiet.

 

[Jon Maine]

I would say that a minimum of £1800 per m2 was required.

It is however an interesting point what happens if you are insured at a realistic ammount and then all of the suitably qualified builders are busy, the law of supply and demand dictates that many will increase their prices. And of course regional variations will apply too.

I currently have my property insured at £1800 per metre square measured outside dimensions x 4 floors as we have cellars.

 

[Flyfisher]

When I was given my £130/ft2 figure (about £1400/m2), I specifically asked if this was for the overall building footprint or per floor.

I was told it was per floor for one or two floors but that a third floor would reduce the /m2 cost because the standard two storey figure amortises the foundations and roof (for example) over just two floors. Adding a 3rd or 4th floor doesn't increase the roofing costs or (proportionally) the foundation costs. So, a figure of £1800/m2 x4 floors might be on the high side of typical.

But, of course, I don't really know for sure, and that's the biggest concern in all this as the figures seem to vary quite a bit. OK, I can accept that period properties are not quite so formulaic as a new build to current building regs but surely there should be a better way to establish an 'acceptable' figure, by which I mean a figure that the insurance industry will accept and not be able to argue about being under-insured.

Personally I would like to be able to insure for a fixed sum for a fixed amount. After all, it's just a form of betting really - I bet the insurance company that I won't incur any claim up to, say, £1m for any damage to my property for a year and they bet that I will. They have all the claims history information to set the odds so let's say 1000:1. Therefore, my 'stake' is £1000, which I lose at the end of the year if the insurance company 'wins' the bet. If I win the bet, by having to make a claim, then the insurance co pays my claim . . . which actually is most unlikely to be the full £1m loss anyway.

But all this nonsense about 'you're under-insured, so we're only going to pay a proportion of your claim', even though the total claim might be only a fraction of the total amount insured, is, to my mind, tantamount to fraud.

Apologies for the slight rant - it's a touchy subject with me :shock:

 

[Penners]

Well, yes, I can see your point-of-view. Playing Devil's advocate, however, I can see that the insurers aren't just concerned about a total loss, but also about a partial loss on a proportionate basis.

If, for example, you insure your £400k house for £300k, and you have a fire that destroys 75% of it, will you expect the insurers to cough up the full cost of repairs, because that falls within your £300k cover?

Why, the insurers could ask, should we pay up the full value of the cover when only 75% of the building has been lost?

I have a déja vu about this. Haven't we discussed it before?

 

[Flyfisher]

Playing Devil's advocate is fine - I do it all the time :wink:

If, for example, you insure your £400k house for £300k, and you have a fire that destroys 75% of it, will you expect the insurers to cough up the full cost of repairs, because that falls within your £300k cover?

Why, the insurers could ask, should we pay up the full value of the cover when only 75% of the building has been lost?

Given that the insurer's are in business to make a profit (fair enough) I can understand why they make that argument to minimise their loss. However, the reason I believe this is disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst is because the value of the house in this case is irrelevant.

Regardless of the house value, the maximum amount contracted to be at risk is £300k and, presumably, the insurer has set the policy premium at a level to cover this possible loss. So, the policy holder pays for £300k of cover but the insurer refuses to pay the full amount, even though they have been fully paid for that level of cover.

Is there another word for this other than fraudulent?

 

[jocelyn plummer]

This is becoming more and more definitive as we discuss. I have found the sq ft info very useful.Thanks

I still feel shocked over the problems one of our subscribers encountered with loss assessors etc, when a tree fell onto the wall of his listed building. A very salutary lesson.

 

[Penners]

Is there another word for this other than fraudulent?

The only one I can think of is "profitable". :wink: