Storm damage to fence...Insurer says NO!

[millymollymoo]

Hi I have been told I am not insured for 'storm damage'to my fence due to last Thursdays disaster.

 

However would some kind sole read this insert below and explain how they would understand the bit mentioning 'fences'. The reason I ask is surely this would make the person feel they were covered for that risk?

 

Key benefits

• Cover is provided for the structure of your home {including outbuildings, garages,walls,gates,fences, etc} against an extensive list of perils such as full accidental damage cover, fire, storm,flood,theft, maliciousdamage, subsidence impact etc {see policy for full list}

My interpetation to this is the words 'incuding' and 'such as' would make the person believe they were covered because the word fences is mentioned and leads me to associate this with claiming against a storm damage.

 

What do you think have I got a argument here or not just on that paragraph, cos that is what I am basing my argument on.???

 

 

Milly X:)

[Glenn UK]

The key is what it says in your policy with respect to the level of cover.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Rooster-UK]

What you've reproduced here certainly suggests that the damage to the fences should be covered.

Are there any exclusions on the policy that might affect it.

 

If not then I would certainly write a letter of complaint to the insurance company asking what part of your policy excludes the fences from cover.

Tell them that if you don't get a satisfactory answer within 7 days that you will take the matter up with the insurance ombudsman and, if necessary, the small claims court because you believe that they are in breach of contract.

 

Please keep us informed.

 

Regards, Rooster.

[Yorkyclaims]

The main thing to look at tis the peril "storm" in your policy booklet. If it excludes damage to gates hedges and fences then I doubt you will have a case for complaint

[millymollymoo]

Rooster. Thanks am going to do exactly that.

 

Glenn and craig:-

 

However, I now have been to the Financial Ombudsman site and this is what is called a'misleading description' and clear contradiction between the policy summary leaflet and the policy booklet exclusions and has happened to many policyholders and their claims have been settled after complaint to the ombudsman.

 

Loads of cases there.

 

misleading descriptions

We see a small number of disputes where we feel the policyholder has been seriously disadvantaged by a misleading description of an insurance policy. Customers who see something purporting to be ‘personal accident insurance’ expect it to provide a reasonably wide-ranging cover for a variety of accidents that might occur. In a few cases, however, although the policy heading or the associated leaflet appear to promise the same wide-ranging cover as other policies with a similar title, the reality falls far short of this.

We take the view that, when judging what the policy provides, a customer is entitled to rely – at least to some extent – on the policy headlines. Where a policy description is not borne out by the small print, we will consider whether the customer could have had any reasonable expectations of cover on the wider basis. We look at what a reasonable person would have concluded about the nature of the cover from the information available to them. Would they readily have understood the restricted nature of the policy on offer or would they have gained the clear impression that wider cover would be provided?

Where appropriate, we will conclude that the firm has not adequately explained the main features of the policy, in the way it is required to do under the General Insurance Standards Council code, and that it may not have done enough to ensure the product is suitable for the policyholder’s needs.

The remedy in such cases will not be a simple matter of returning the customer’s premiums. Where better alternative cover is readily available, we are likely to conclude that the firm should handle the claim as if its unusual and/or misleading restrictions on cover did not apply

 

Milly X:)

[millymollymoo]

Heres one complaint that mentions reliance on the leaflet.

 

18/15

household contents – limit of cover – brochure promising wider cover than policy terms – whether insurer entitled to rely on policy exclusion.

Mrs K took out the household insurance recommended by her lender and chose the top of the range offered –‘Supercover Special’. The brochure described it as ‘unlimited contents cover – accidental damage and personal possession cover outside the home’ and ‘one of the most complete covers available’. It confirmed that personal possessions, including sports equipment and children’s bikes, were covered up to £1,500 for any one article.

The explanatory leaflet stated that the policy did not cover ‘motor vehicles, caravans, trailers, aircraft, watercraft or spare parts and accessories’. However, it warned – ‘This leaflet is just a guide and does not summarise all aspects of the cover; only the policy document does this.’

When Mrs K made a claim for the theft of her son’s baby-quad bike, the insurer rejected it, citing the policy exclusion for ‘mechanically propelled vehicles’. It said the quad bike should have been covered by motor insurance. Mrs K objected, arguing that she had never received a copy of the policy document and that the leaflet suggested that the bike was covered. She also pointed out that her son was only seven years old and could not have used the bike on the road or taken out motor insurance.

complaint upheld

Whether a baby-quad bike was a ‘motor vehicle’ or a ‘mechanically propelled vehicle’ was debatable. However, we did not need to decide that point. There was a clear contradiction between the policy exclusion and the wording of the leaflet. Not only did it expressly include ‘children’s bikes’, but it stated there was ‘unlimited’ contents cover. It did not seem reasonable to assume Mrs K should have known that the insurer did not consider her son’s bike to be part of the ‘contents’ of her house.

The insurer had not worded its policy leaflet in a clear and unambiguous way, so Mrs K was entitled to the benefit of the wording that was most favourable to her. We required the firm to meet her claim.

 

Milly x:)

[millymollymoo]

P.S have not got the insurers policy booklet as Endsleigh Insurance are the broker and deal with it!

 

Milly X

[Glenn UK]

Milly

 

This looks good for you, the point i was trying to make was that there is often a generic book that gives information on a range of levels of cover, hence my comment about what it says in your policy.

 

Anyway whats the next step?

 

Glenn

[millymollymoo]

Hi Glenn,

 

The complaints manager is taking alook at the policy summary to see if what I have said is correct and implies that the fence would be covered. I will update with his reply tomorrow followed by a letter to the complaints department if answer is NO. If rejected by them then Im off to the Financial Ombudsman.

 

Milly X:)

[Rooster-UK]

Good luck.

 

 

Rooster.

[Guest NATTIE]

If it is an act of God can he be sued aka the film with Billy Connolly---sorry just could not resist

[millymollymoo]

thats ok nattie:)

 

He phoned and I was out left amessage that he would call tomoz!

 

Milly X:)

[Bookworm]

Who, god?

[millymollymoo]

Om my goodnss. My telephone conversation stating misleading description worked as the

 

INSURER SAID YES!! yippee!!! :D :D

 

The complaints manager said that only in this instance and it would not happen again as they are busy amending their policy summaries now, he said they would fully pay out as if I was covered as it did read that way!!!!!

 

Milly X:)

[millymollymoo]

Who, god?

 

 

Yep he is now that he's agreed to pay out!!!!!

 

 

 

Milly X:)

[Rooster-UK]

Hi Millymollymoo.

 

That's terrific news. Congratulations.

Way to go!

 

Regards, Rooster.

[millymollymoo]

Thank you Rooster...It has saved me over £800!!! Just the 50 to pay in excess!!!!

 

MillyX:)

[millymollymoo]

Actually saved me £1150. Check those contracts or key features docs:D

[xrchris]

I am surprised you got that one as most insurers have excluded storm damage to fences since the 'hurricane' of 1987.

 

Looks like sloppy documentation won you through there. Well done.

[millymollymoo]

Yes exactly it was the misleading description on my key features that made me believe I was covered and stated that. They had alook and agreed, however they state this would not be allowed again as they are correcting this.