Listed Buildings Insurance - Claim update

[Pford75]

Regular readers will recall various posts by myself over recent months regarding insurance cover for Listed Buildings, claims etc.

Our flint & clay lump wall was demolished in January by a very large Beech tree and we have been dealing with the insurance company since.

We are now approaching completion of the rebuild (almost 11 months after the storm) and although the wall looks fantastic, the problems with the insurers continue.

Basically, the loss adjusters were useless and after much correspondance (including writing to the Chairman of the insurers), they were removed from the claim

The insurers then engaged one of their 'hot shot' surveyors on the claim and things moved forwards again. But now, we have a final site visit on Friday where he wants to inspect (which of course is ok), but he has already stated that he intends to form a view of 'reasonable costs for the reconstruction' and has requested a final invoice from the contractor.

I'm surprised, because the loss adjuster agreed total costs after we went to tender for the work...and in fact the insurers have already made 2 stage payments (50% and 25%) on the basis of this total figure.....so I'm perplexed at their suggestion that they want to 'revise' the final invoice. Seems a bit like asking someone to tile your bathroom...they quote £500 and when they finish, you offer them £300 on the basis that you don't think it's worth £500.

I'm inclined to dig my heels in and simply insist on full payment on the basis of what was agreed. Seems that the loss adjuster got confused over drawings/quotes etc. and was generally incompetent....leading to confusion between them and the insurer....but I don't see this as my problem.

Any thoughts? The contractor is very clear he wants/expects all of his money and has suggsted that he will dismantle the wall if he isn't paid - Where would he stand given that the wall itself is subject to GII listing?

 

[Flyfisher]

Oh dear. I hope you've been keeping a good written record of everything!

If you've got agreement in writing from the insurance company to pay the original amount then I'd say they have to honour that agreement. It is, in effect, a contract.

If the insurers subsequently decided the loss adjuster got things wrong, I agree that it shouldn't be your problem - you've already had confirmation of what they will pay out and that's that.

On that basis, you (I presume) have instructed a contractor to do the repairs. If so, that is a separate contract for which you are responsible, i.e. you must pay the agreed amount.

I doubt the contractor would demolish the wall because if he did then he has no grounds on which to claim his money, since he has not delivered his part of the contract. I would think it's more likely he would sue you for the money instead.

I agree you should dig your heels in and insist the insurance co pay you what they originally agreed. They may wish to withold the final 25% if there is a problem with the final inspection but I wouldn't consider them to be qualified to judge the acceptability of the work. Presumably, it is the CO who is responsible for signing off the re-build, and if he's happy then I can't see how the insurance company could argue against his decision. So they have to pay you the final 25%.

I'm no lawyer though - good luck!

 

[Pford75]

Thanks for the post....luckily I have been very diligent on keeping a record....email does have it's uses :lol:

Anyway, I guess I'll have to see how it plays out on Friday. I agree with the insurers that the claim has not been well handled (and that their Loss Adjuster shld have re-tendered following some specification changes), but as you say...don't see why that is my problem.

Main issue is the sums involved....this is not a small contract...in fact, the total claim (site clearance, construction, garden landscaping, drawings, structural engineer etc.) will run into 6 figures. Hence, I don't want to be left holding the baby.

Once this is all over, I will try and post some photos here.

 

[Flyfisher]

6 figures! :shock: (I assume you're not including the pence) - It must be some wall; I can't wait to see some photos.

I think you're in a strong position; you have written confirmation of their agreement to pay the quote (the contract) and you have received two stage-payments (confirmation of the contract).

I would stand firm. If they even hint at not paying out the final amount, stand firm and ask them to confirm why they would break their contract with you at this late stage. perhaps having a file handy with the relevant email confirmations might convince them that you're serious - and with 25% of a 6-figure sum involved, you should be!

Are there any real lawyers here?

Fingers crossed for Friday.

 

[Pford75]

Hooray!!! :lol:

Met with the 'Senior claims adjuster' from the insurers this morning. It was a final site visit related to our flint & clay lump wall which was badly damaged back in January. To cut a long story short, he has agreed to pay for everything in the claim...including landscaping the garden when the builders have finished.

Regulars will recall a long thread earlier in the year regarding the amount of buildings cover we should all have...I list my experiences here in the hope that it helps others. Although our claim has been paid, our cover has increased by just over £1m....I have yet to see what impact that has on my premium

Event

A 70ft beech tree fell on the wall...collapsing much of it into the road, felling a telegraph pole and taking out overhead electrical wires. It then slid along the wall, damaging coping on another wall at right angles. We also damaged a neighbours fence across the road.

The wall was apx. 13ft tall (6ft flint panels between brick quoins with 6ft clay lump on top...rendered and coping). The damaged section was apx. 50ft long.

Costs

Removal of the tree - £3300
Site clearance (rubble, clay lump removal etc.) - £2850
Charge for replacement telegraph pole - £850
Removal of unstable clay lump - £2300
Reconstruction of 6ft wall (height reduced) with brick core, flint panels and brick quoins - £66000 (some quotes were as high as £82000)
Removal of further clay lump panel and remedial works which had become unstable due to lack of support and water ingress -£14,300
Groundworks - £2200
Landscaping - £1500
Replacement brick pier at end of wall - £1100
Replacement hardwood gate - £540
Professional fees for structural engineer, surveyor etc. - £5200
Repairs to neighbours fence - £750


Total - £100,890

This total price shocked me....but I can assure you that we went to tender and this was the lowest price!!

It's been a real eye-opener in terms of potential size of claim. The insurer this morning was relating another case he is working on somewhere near Southampton...where a fire has caused near 'total loss'. The CO is insisting on like for like repair/replacement...but the total sum insured is nowhere close to what is required to pay for that.

Would encourage everyone to have a long hard look at their policy and even consider inviting the insurers opinion on cover req'd. One final point mentioned by the insurers was that sometimes they apply for de-listing, if they feel that this will enable a more cost-effective repair....and if the householder/policyholder refuses...they would not pay the claim!!! I wasn't aware that this was their policy.

 

[Flyfisher]

Wow. One tree
Looking at the costs, I can't help but feel there's an element of all parties sticking their heads in the 'insurance trough', but what can you do?

One final point mentioned by the insurers was that sometimes they apply for de-listing, if they feel that this will enable a more cost-effective repair....and if the householder/policyholder refuses...they would not pay the claim!!! I wasn't aware that this was their policy.

Surely de-listing is not something in the control of the house/policy holder?

 

[Nemesis]

Oh dear me! Here you might need that much reviled local authority, and the input of we nasty and misguided conservationists!

I am involved with a delisting app, which has cost the applicants thousands and over two and a half years' in time.

Hmmmm.

 

[skier-hughes]

So now we can all see why your insurance cover has had to be recalculated, if one section of wall costs £100,000.

How long is the wall in total?

Graham

 

[Penners]

Would encourage everyone to have a long hard look at their policy and even consider inviting the insurers opinion on cover req'd.

That's very good advice. It's always tempting to try and keep your premium costs as low as possible by adopting a conservative approach to the valuation of your property and contents. But as you have shown, it only takes one tree...

You must be mightily relieved that the whole thing is now over and done with, and that the insurer has coughed up.

Shouldn't you be buying us all a drink? Or should that be the other way round? :wink:

Sleep well tonight!

 

[Nemesis]

Of course, anyone can apply for delisting. The DCMS has to consider all applications. If the building/structure concerned has been damaged and is no longer considered of listable quality, it will be considered for removal from the statutory list.

 

[Pford75]

Anyway...the claim is settled...I simply mentioned the 'delisting' angle as I had always assumed that it would be completely in the control of the householder. The view of my insurance co (and I don't know if all have the same view) is that they take whatever steps are required to settle the claim as efficiently as possible. I agree with Nemesis that 'delisting' is not as straightforward as the insurance co would like to think (especially if the householder was opposed)...but it's certainly an eye opener.

As for the "reviled local authority" and the input of "nasty and misguided conservationists", you continue to (deliberately?) misunderstand my point. In this case, our CO has been very helpful and suggested additional works (which I undertook at my own considerable expenses) - the CO has liaised well with my builders, surveyors etc. My complaint was that there is only one of him!! I don't hold him to blame for the underfunding by the council.

So, if seeking advice and then agreeing to every suggestion made by the CO makes me one of the baddies...so be it.

Looking at the costs, I can't help but feel there's an element of all parties sticking their heads in the 'insurance trough', but what can you do?

Agreed - further complication was that there were lots of similar jobs as a result of the storms earlier this year. Coupled with that, we live in Norfolk with a shortage of 'Conservation builders'...so they can pretty much name their price.

How long is the wall in total?

This is the scary bit....the wall itself is about 10 times that length....so you can see an argument for the wall alone being insured for £1m! Luckily the insurers have simply agreed a lump sum figure for the outbuildings and wall on the basis that total loss is almost impossible (given the area which they cover). But you are right....I can now see why the cover has shot up and am just thankful that I haven't had the same experience as those who were flooded.

Shouldn't you be buying us all a drink?

The virtual beers are on me :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

But you have gone at length about the fact when you contacted the council the CO was unavailable. I presume the council knew you had workmen lined up on site, paid at daily rate, and required it to jump instantly at your command? You had written and given advance notice that you required a CO to be available on a particular date?

It hasn't occurred to you that local authorities don't work like that? That LA's don't have spare personnel lined up just in case? That of course would cost council tax payers extra cash. I have no doubt you won't mind that though.

If you feel that they are in error of course you are free to take it up with the Chief Executive. That way, extra people could be employed?

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree with Nemesis that 'delisting' is not as straightforward as the insurance co would like to think (especially if the householder was opposed)...but it's certainly an eye opener.

I wonder why a householder might oppose de-listing?

I appreciate the earlier point that anyone can apply for de-listing but my point about the householder not being in control was because the decision is not theirs to make - as it is also not their decision for the property to be listed in the first place.

 

[Nemesis]

Well maybe you can do some research on this and come back and explain all to the forum.

It's rather complex of course, but I am sure you can cope.

 

[Mark]

I agree with Nemesis that 'delisting' is not as straightforward as the insurance co would like to think (especially if the householder was opposed)...but it's certainly an eye opener.

I wonder why a householder might oppose de-listing?

perhaps because the ins.co may then refuse to do exact like for like repairs?

Lath &plaster -> plasterboard?

 

[Flyfisher]

The first point was an open question, so not much to research.

The second point was, I thought, self-explanatory.

 

[Flyfisher]

I wonder why a householder might oppose de-listing?

perhaps because the ins.co may then refuse to do exact like for like repairs?

Lath &plaster -> plasterboard?

Interesting point, but I doubt an insurance company could get away with that. If you have insurance for Lath & Plaster and it gets damaged then the ins co must pay for it to be replaced or repaired. Nothing to do with listing, I think.

 

[Nemesis]

Clearly, there is a great deal about listing and de-listing of which you are unaware, so possibly you can do some research and enlighten the forum. I am sure it will be illuminating.

Do bear in mind current legislation, current practice, and case law, as well as the Judicial Review which may be in the pipeline.

The DCMS is always very helpful, in case you wish for further advice.

I await your further posts on this with with interest as it's something in which I have some expertise, but I am always keen to extend my knowledge.

 

[Flyfisher]

There's no need to write an in-depth treatise in order to make the simple point that owners of listed property have no ultimate control over the listing/de-listing process - or have I got that wrong?

 

[skier-hughes]

How can a Judicial Review which may be in the pipeline have anything to do with what's happening today?