Home Insurance rant/question
 

Hi there. I recently moved to Markham ON and am currently living with my wife's in-laws. Following a recent thunderstorm there was a leak around the skylight above the entrance lobby (a circular stain approx 10 inches in diameter, so relatively small). My wife asked me to phone the insurers (TD) as my in-laws are a bit deaf and although the wheels swung into action very quickly I'm shocked at how the process worked. A contractor assessed the damage and recommended resealing the plaster and repainting the upstairs ceiling area. Then an assessor arrived and announced windstorm damage is covered by the policy but regular, ten-a-penny thunderstorms are not (hunh?). There was a line in the policy additions that sudden water seepage through the roof is covered but apparently this is superceded by the general exclusions. Further the policy doesn't cover loss or damage during periods of the property being vacant even if TD are notified (we came back from a four day trip to the States). Finally a roofing contractor assessed the roof and in addition to noting a cracked skylight recommends the entire roof be replaced as the workmanship of the contractors who replaced the roof earlier this year was exceptionally poor (you guessed it - the policy doesn't cover loss due to poor workmanship).

An extraordinary carry on for a problem I thought wouldn't cost much more than than the deductible (excess - $500) to resolve. I don't have any direct home insurance claim experience in the UK but I know my parents have experienced flooding three times due to faulty water systems over the years and have reclaimed without issue each time, and for several thousand each time. I thought maybe my mother in law had a cheap policy but it's $550 a year and as an ex-govt employee I assumed would have solid coverage. Has anyone had experience of a home insurance claim here? Is it worth me challenging the process? It seems their attitude was finding any way not to accept the claim, when with the cost they've born from the inspections I suspect it would have been quicker and not much more expensive to just reseal the skylight and clean up the damage. I called the roofing contractor but he doesn't want to know. The perils of a strange system in a strange land...

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

Its always worth challenging the process here. Insurance companies will try and avoid paying out as a default.

I hate insurance here, its a rip off and a con. But you have to have it:frown:

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

Nikki Dreaming might be able to assist, as she works in Claims (SNIP)

This is however an area where a good insurance broker would have been able to assist. Whilst it does seem like you're being given the run around, it's impossible to talk about policy coverage without seeing the actual policy.

Finally, had you had Legal Expense insurance, it may have allowed you to pursue the insurance company for denying the claim and/or the roofing contractor for the poor workmanship.

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

Seems like a nice racket to be in Iain - their profit margins must be huge here!

Thanks Jericho, I'll send her a PM. I guess it's a policy she's had long term from pre-retirement days and I doubt she'd have used a broker. Anyway, I'll let them know my views and see what joy we get. I'll try and remember to change providers when the policy ends but I'm guessing TD is probably no better or worse than any of the others.

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

1. I dunno if outing people as insurance workers is kosher even if they've posted it themselves.

2. Failing to out yourself as a legal expense insurance salesman when selling legal expense insurance surely aint kosher.

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

What if the insurer one wishes to sue is the insurer that issued the policy?:p

I have, generally, been apalled by the way insurers deal with claims over here. The litigation that I have been involved with simply to ensure that the insurer pays out for damage that was insured is shocking.

As a result of the dire costs awards here, it inevitably involves the insured having to fork out for lawyers fees that are so prohibitively expensive that the insurer is able to grind their policyholder into accepting a huge loss. To add insult to injury, the limitation period for suing insurers in Alberta is less than for most other claims. It is criminal.

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

When an idiot crashed into our car, I was surprised how quickly and easily SGI sorted it out. Perhaps that was because the police gave the idiot a ticket so they were clearly at fault, but the car was repaired pretty much as soon as we could get it in to the repair shop (and there's no sign of the damage two years later so they did a good job).

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

Hi there. I recently moved to Markham ON and am currently living with my wife's in-laws.

Wouldn't your wife's in-laws be your parents?

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

Nice one mate.

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

I've had one run-in with car insurers that had me foaming (at first).... my wife got hit (in the car) by a truck which drove off after mangling a wing. I was away and the insurance company told her to take the car to a particular garage for assessing (it was still drivable). The garage tried to make her sign a contract saying that if they did the assessment then we would guarantee them the work.
I called the Insurance and told them to poke off... it was not up to them to choose which garage did the work, and I wanted it done at the dealer, where it was always taken. They agreed that I could take it where I liked (they would send an assessor) but they would only pay $40 per hour, and I would have to make up the difference! I was fuming as since when has a main dealer charged that for repairs??
There's all sorts of hidden "gotchas" in these policies.... tw@s!!

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

:D I can hardly be accused of selling anything can I? I havent even mentioned my employer? I'm merely pointing out the facts.

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

I will reply best I can, hopefully without being lynched:eek:

I do need to see the policy wording itself to try and give some advice, however generally with home owners policies, they are not home maintenance policies. Basic coverage will only cover damage as a result of named perils, ie specific events, others are broader, where coverage is all risks, but then there are a list of exclusions, basic ones that spring to mind are poor workmanship, damage that has occurred over a period of time and not as a result of a sudden single event, for wind related damage, quite often policies will state that a sudden opening or aperture has to have been created.

If coverage is in place, the requirement of the insurer is to put you back into the same position as you were before the loss,indemnity principal that is referred to in the contract ie will not cover a whole new roof, if a part of it can be adequately repaired.

Home insurance is certainly a lot greyer than auto, so worth discussing and trying to negotiate, however, like I said, it would depend on your policy wording, I have sent you a pm

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

im not sure a good broker would have made any difference to be honest, they cant change the policy wording, the exclusions that appear to be being quoted by the OP are fairly standard across almost all home policies

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

Agreed. Just saying it could/would have given him an advocate, or someone to explain the policy to him, independent of the insurer.

Re: Home Insurance rant/question
 

yep def advocate, sorry just twigged op is with a direct writer doh!