Zurich building guarantee claim - liability being passed to others

[tifo]

following the first advice above i offered to carry out the repairs to which they replied as quoted before that.

[tifo]

i have to be off ... thanks.

[tifo]

had a response from CL/Zurich ....

 

they've split my single claim for damage in various areas into 6 smaller claims for each part and in each case have said (1) there is no defect and (2) the claim is below minimal claim value (MVC). However, my total claim is around £10k+.

 

In the case of the main claim which is damage to ceilings, they state this is condensation which is not covered but is due to a building defect and that it comes under routine maintenance (the attic area).

 

in one part they've said there is no claim because i've repaired the problem (i had to as damage was getting unsafe) and in another case they said the damage is now greater because i didn't take action to repair it. So here we have two rules (repair/not repair) which they use as they want.

 

of course the damage is greater now than 2 years ago but that's because they took that time looking into the claim, which is definately not my fault.

[tifo]

update ....

 

the FOS Adjudicator has concluded that:

 

1. The developer breached the 'requirements' of their policy agreement, specifically a term relating to preventing condensation/mould building up around the house.

2. Zurich should pay my claim for the remaining 'heads of claim'. This is the extensive condensation/damp and mould around the house.

3. Zurich should repay me the excess they took off from their last payments.

4. Zurich should pay me compensation of £300 for distress and inconvenience as they have handled the claim in a terrible manner.

 

Zurich has not accepted the recommendations and have escalated the complaint to an Ombudsman. I'm told it's a 15 month wait.

 

Zurich agree that:

 

1. There are 'defects' which have resulted in the damage

2. That they cannot rely on the exclusion clauses against this.

3. That they made an error in taking the excess.

 

But Zurich say that the damage is not 'major' as defined in the policy though it fits the criteria of 'damage caused by a defect' and they will not pay anything, not the claim or the excess or the compensation.

 

I don't really get what the insurer is doing and seem to be playing with words.

 

The Adjudicator also stated that the loss adjuster had not carried out their investigation properly and not referred to the 'requirements' of the policy and their report should be ignored. That's what i've been saying all along

[tifo]

i've taken a barrister's opinion on a case against the insurer or developer.

 

in their opinion, i cannot sue either for any loss because i don't have a contract with them BUT the policy is a contract between the two. This is because the developer paid the insurer to indemnify the property they built.

 

plus i cannot take action because the 6 year limit is over.

 

so i've been sold a house with a policy that is meant to but does not benefit me and i cannot take action on something that lasts 10 years but limitation is 6.

 

the barrister cannot see how any insurer would want to pay the home owner when they have no contract with them. So what is a 10 year building guarantee for?

 

i'm confused as it's clear that insurers DO pay out to home owners under this guarantee and my insurer is not denying cover, only that the damage is not covered.

[polly2]

Hello I'm interested in knowing the outcome of this. I am hoping to make a claim on my Zurich 10 policy.

[unclebulgaria67]

Hello I'm interested in knowing the outcome of this. I am hoping to make a claim on my Zurich 10 policy.

 

This thread is almost 5 years old. I doubt you will find out, unless tifo gets an email triggered by your posting and then responds.

 

What other research have you done online. Have you googled, as I am sure there will be plenty of complaints online. Zurich don't appear to have a good reputation for straightforward handling of claims.

[raydetinu]

speak to Zurich?

the warranty date usually starts from the date of completion of the building when signed off by the client who had it built or built it. Not when it was sold.

[tifo]

it's still ongoing ....... zurich accepted the claim when it went to the Ombudsdman.

 

court proceedings due soon against Zurich after a few years at the Ombudsman. Initial letters to their nominated solicitors were sent some months ago who have offered to settle some heads of claim but not all (and the main damage). I've said I'll accept to settle these heads of claim and move forward to court on unsettled matters but they want all or nothing.

 

i'm even thinking of a judicial review against the Ombudsman who made the decision that the developer is at fault which the insurer accepts and they both put a figure of £200 to the repairs (against my £9,750) but then say it is not covered under the policy definition of major damage. The Ombudsman also missed out crucial heads of claims because they seemed to misunderstand my heads of complaint even though they are clear in the loss adjusters report.

 

so the Ombudsman and insurer accept the developer made mistakes which resulted in the damage claimed but none will pay for repairs.

Edited April 4, 2013 by tifo

[raydetinu]

I pressume you had a loss assessor or your own surveyor/engineer advising you in this!

I have dealt with Zurich and NHBC and found them open and fair in dealing with claims when a faced with professional reports and findings.

The point about litigation is knowing when to stop as costs often start to outweigh any benefits, if you loose.

[tifo]

I pressume you had a loss assessor or your own surveyor/engineer advising you in this!

I have dealt with Zurich and NHBC and found them open and fair in dealing with claims when a faced with professional reports and findings.

The point about litigation is knowing when to stop as costs often start to outweigh any benefits, if you loose.

 

The loss adjuster was from Zurich. They simply made a report to decline the claim. The Ombudsman even said this.

 

It then went through the Ombudsman who said as stated above. The first time my whole claim was upheld but Zurich did not accept the decision and asked for a review. Parts of it were then upheld and parts not, even though both the Ombudsman and insurer accept those not upheld were due to the developers mistakes during building but that the policy definition does not cover them. No reference to the policy clause of the developer warranting to the home buyer that they built with skill, care and in a workmanlike manner, which has obviously been breached with the building mistakes.

 

Zurich solicitors have then offered to pay for the parts upheld and end the whole claim. I obviously cannot accept this so the whole claim is now going to court where we'll let the judge decide if the policy definition is correct (I say the insurer is now reading it wrong) and whether the developer has breached the clause to work with care and skill by making the building mistakes.

 

I bought a new house with building mistakes from the outset which then resulted in damage some years later. The insurer was negligent in not surveying the property prior to issuing the certificate. In the policy it states they do this on every property but in my claim they said they didn't do this and mine may not have been inspected as part of a batch.

[raydetinu]

Loss adjuster works for insurance co./ loss assessor works for the client ( you ) or you engage a surveyor or engineer to report on your claim.

Well worth it as they usualy take notice then, witha professional report and the cost of which you can usualy get back from the insurance.

If not too late I strongly advise you get a professional to back up your claims.

[tifo]

it's not too late and I will get all the necessary reports for the court claim.

 

i don't know how they'll win. They can't change the meaning of the written word or the fact that all are agreed the developer made mistakes.

 

it comes down to 1 word ........ 'including' in the definition of 'major damage' and whether it means 'including' as I am saying or 'only' as the insurer is saying. Basically the insurer is saying payout is limited to structural damage 'only' whilst the policy says 'including' it.