The irony of building insurance

[michael]

I’ve recently had some scaffolding erected over my lean-to roof in order to gain access to the exposed brickwork (about a dozen courses) above the lean-to’s lead flashing. You may remember in a recent thread that I was considering painting this wall with silicate paint.
This wall has always been a bit ropey, badly pointed, scruffy colouring and a bit of a banana shaped curve in it when looking in plan. Unfortunately things have got a bit worse.
On climbing the scaffold today to inspect the wall with a builder ( the intention being to re-point the wall), I’ve discovered that the brick work above the roof flashing is leaning towards the roof with a lean of about 6” off the vertical. Not only that the wall ‘rocks /sways’ with hand pressure and it is in danger of collapsing onto the lean-to roof, certainly with a good push.

So the top 12 courses will be coming off tomorrow and rebuilt salvaging the existing bricks.

Trouble is, my insurance company doesn’t want to know. There’s no evidence of subsidence as the lower part of the wall is sound and it hasn’t been hit by a plane or anything drastic like that. It’s just an old wall that needs repairing hence no pay up.

Ironically, if the property/wall had been owned by somebody that didn’t have the slightest idea or interest in maintaining buildings and consequently wouldn’t have even noticed the state of the wall let alone erect scaffolding and if the wall consequently came tumbling down onto and probably through the roof, then the insurance company would have paid out.

It seems that my prudence and diligence doesn’t pay. Has anybody else experienced this irony?
Or is there a way of convincing the insurers to have a change of heart in this case?

 

[middi]

That's a bit of bad luck.
Yes it is ironic, it is one of those rare instances where honesty doesn't pay.
One thing is for sure, there is no way the ins. company is going to pay for repairs. As you say, if you had given it a " nudge" before you told them you may have been better off.
Still, look at it on the bright side, you will sleep with a clear conscience ( ALBEIT MUCH POORER)

Middi

 

[skier-hughes]

That's not what insurance is for, so no wonder they won't pay out.
If it just falls down I wonder if they would have paid out? If there were no very high winds, torrential rain to cause it to fail, they would probably just argue you hadn't maintained it properly.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm no expert but I tend to agree with Skier. If the wall just fell down on its own, in the absence of any aggravating cause I think you'd have to prove it was in good condition before they would pay out. I've even heard of claims for blown-down fences being refused where the fence posts were shown to be fairly rotten anyway.

I know we all love to hate insurance companies but (sharp intake of breath) fair's fair - they're not insuring against natural wear and tear. If they were, I'd have been able to claim a small fortune and could have gone away on holiday while someone else did all our repairs instead of me!

Of course, if the scaffolders had knocked the wall down with a scaffolding pole then they would probably have paid out (the scaffolder's insurance anyway).

Hopefully, it won't take too long to rebuild the section of wall so it shouldn't be too expensive. At least you'll then know it is sound and will rest easy at night.

 

[Penners]

I agree with skier-hughes and Flyfisher. It's extremely unlikely that your insurers would have paid out if the wall had collapsed. The problem affecting it is clearly natural deterioration/wear and tear, and that's not what insurers cover.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Mmm, agree. It becomes vastly expensive after a claim anyhow, so when our plastic (25 yr old) roof got smashed up in high winds this year I deemed it unwise to claim. Firstly, I think they would have been right to refuse, and secondly, we had already recently claimed for a burglary and been given 3k by them (NFU) without any hassle at all.
Actually, although the premium has gone up it's not quite as bad as I thought.

Bad luck about the wall though Michael.

 

[CliffordPope]

There is an analogy with car windscreen insurance that springs to mind.

If you find a small chip in the windscreen and get it fixed, the insurance company will gladly pay, because it means they have saved the later much more expensive replacement of the whole windscreen if you ignored the chip. So they reward vigilance and honesty, because it is cheaper for them.
If they pay out for a new windscreen, they don't try and maintain that there must have been a chip in it which you ignored, or that you haven't "maintained" your windscreen.

 

[worms]

There is an analogy with car windscreen insurance that springs to mind.

I'm afraid, the cynic in me has the "repair the chip" business in the same category as the electro-osmotic damp-proofing business. While some chips may eventually lead to a crack that results in the need for a replacement windscreen, the vast majority don't. The repair is easy money for the windscreen companies, the insurance companies play along because they now have a better excuse for not paying for the replacements. Everyone on the corporate side of the equation is happy. We pay twice, through increased premiums to cover the chip repairs and then again for replacement windscreens that are no longer covered by the insurance.

 

[Penners]

There's an equal and opposite argument to that, worms (otherwise known as an anti-argument - we've named it but we don't seem to be able to find it).

Repairs to stone-chips are responsible for a reduction in the number of replacement windscreens needed, thus they save the insurance companies money and keep our premiums lower.

I always was an innocent, trusting soul.

 

[Flyfisher]

Repairs to stone-chips are responsible for a reduction in the number of replacement windscreens needed, thus they save the insurance companies money and keep our premiums lower.

You were making sense until the "premiums lower" bit. :wink:

Coincidentally, I called Autoglass out for a windscreen repair this week but they said they couldn't repair it because the damage was actually comprised of two chips about 1cm apart. So my cheap repair became a £75 excess payment.

I have the same sort of luck with punctures; they always seem to necessitate a new tyre. :evil:

 

[LadyArowana]

the damage was actually comprised of two chips about 1cm apart. So my cheap repair became a £75 excess payment.

Next time borrow a labrador from someone, those dogs are guaranteed to make a couple of chips disappear for a lot less than 75 quid.

 

[Penners]

Grandsons can perform a similar trick. :wink:

 

[worms]

Repairs to stone-chips are responsible for a reduction in the number of replacement windscreens needed

Coincidentally, I called Autoglass out for a windscreen repair this week but they said they couldn't repair it

I do about 25,000 miles a year,mostly on minor or single-track roads and get my fair share of chips in the windscreen as do most of the people I know. From what I can see, the chips either remain stable or develop into a serious crack between the chip occurring and arriving at your destination, so I would argue that the number of times that the chip results in a later crack are fairly few. Remember that the chip repair business started out as a service to ensure that you didn't fail your MOT, the "chips develop into a crack" story came much later.

What is the repair process anyway? A "dod" of superglue or a slightly more technical version with UV light to set the resin and add to the witchcraft? And could we do the same with DIY materials?*

*For once this may be beyond the wondrous capacity of linseed oil!

 

[Penners]

my fair share of chips

Here's what I regard as my fair share of chips:

 

[d49xc]

I have 3 medium sized chips on my windscreen plus the odd dimple.
They have been there for between 5 and 10 years- unchanged - (the car is 15 years old)
As regards the MOT....
one is just inside the main zone of vision and is just below the acceptable size
two are just outside the main zone of vision where it is allowed to be slightly bigger - and it just below the limit again.
Both have clearly not changed in size in years, and every year they are an advisory on the MOT.
I fully expect that one day the screen will crack totally - whereupon I'll get a new windscreen

 

[FamilyWiggs]

my fair share of chips

Here's what I regard as my fair share of chips:

[image]

What a disappointing 12,000th post Penners. I had been expecting one of your usual erudite and articulate, perceptively perspicacious observations. Sadly all we got was obfuscatory foodstuffs.



Clearly during my recent absence, standards have slipped. I see I shall have to return to keep you on your toes.

 

[Flyfisher]

Not only that, but they looked suspiciously like those stringy 'french fries' abominations instead of proper (period?) chips:

 

[LadyArowana]

Not only that, but they looked suspiciously like those stringy 'french fries' abominations instead of proper (period?) chips:

:roll: How much enthusiasm do you think I can now muster for a healthy lunch? :evil: I was very careful to post a small and unappetising picture when we drifted onto the topic of chips. You're lucky I don't make you suffer a lot of pictures of shoes, cute puppies, semi-naked well muscled chaps and sundry other "girly" things by way of retaliation.

 

[Flyfisher]

:lol:
Perhaps the healthy option would be to only eat two of them and borrow a labrador to devour the remainder. :wink:

 

[michael]

So should the insurance pay for my dodgy wall then. I wonder if Autoglass know any good builders?