Thread: Home Insurance claim

Hi...please could someone help me .....I had a leak in the flat roof in my kitchen going back in aug last year, which caused water damage to my kitchen walls and ceiling...i put a claim in with the insurance co and was told that the roof was old and we were'nt covered for the repair to the roof but was covered for the water damage to my kitchen as the roof was an old one
we paid for the roof to be fixed and the ins co paid for the redecorating to the kitchen...
unfortunately about a week after it was all finished we still had water coming into the kitchen....after our builder did some investigating we found that (my bad luck..)..we had a secondary leak from the main roof on the building...we obviously did'nt dream that when we had the flat roof leak thattere was another one...
i contacted the ins co ...and thay sent a guy to the house to look at the water damage....i was then asked to send in a builders qoute for the repair...which i did ...they they then wanted to send one of their own builders around which they did...last week they then sent a consultant of theirs here....who has said that
"I am not covered for water damage to the property because the leak in the roof was not caused by storms or floods"....
my argument has been that we were covered for the flat roor water damage and that was'nt caused by any storm or flood ...so what is the difference now?....they have just turned around and told me that "i should'nt have been paid for the water damage to the kitchen the first time and that it was an error on their behalf and 2 wrongs do'nt make a right"....
they are making me feel as if i am pulling an insurance [problem] here....and i have told them that if was trying to do that "I certaintly would'nt try to get money out of them for a room i have only had decorated for 2 weeks i would have picked a different room in the house "
all the work i have just had done in my kitchen i have had to have hacked off while as it was soaking wet !!!!
I apologise for the long winded explination....but is diffucult to write the details down more concise than this...plus it has got it off my chest...lol
i would be grateful for any advice any of you may have on this..
kind regards...

Unfortunately they are correct, an insurance company will only pay out when an insurable event has occured.
In the case where water ingresses through a worn flat roof, the insurance company needs to determine where the water leak was occuring over a period of time (maintenance issue) or whether a "storm" has caused the roof to fail.

Our definition of "Storm" is:
"Norwich Union defines a storm as an “unusual weather event” It is persistent high winds, severe rainfall or snowstorms probably but not necessarily accompanied by wind. It also includes tornados."

We will require a tradesmen to determine the age of the roof and ask for maintenance history. A flat roof generally lasts 10 years at best without annual checks.

If the claim is determined that a "Storm" has not occured then some policy holders assume that the "Accidental Damage" section of the policy would cover this.
If you look at the "Accidental Damage" section, you may find this exclusion:
"Damage caused by:

• wear and tear, settlement, shrinkage,
vermin, insects, fungus, weather
conditions or anything that

happens gradually;

As you can see this part of the policy will not cover the claim either - the insurance company will then inform you that their is no cover to financially assist with this incident.

I hope this makes sense, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.