Home Insurance Claims

baguio

Had an home insurance claim in as my upstairs en-suite leaked - damaging the ceiling below. Claim was processed without any problems - but the workman I got found an easier way to fix - and so some of the things that were supposed to be done in reinstating the ceiling/wall - and covered under the payout - were not necessary to make good/reinstate.

Do insur. co's normally call round again once work has been completed? This was for a small amount >€5k.
If they were to inspect the work, should i be concerned about how they would view this??

Anyone have any previous experience with this sort of thing?

oldyouth

The estimate you provided to your insurers, on which they based their settlement, should have only included the costs necessary in repairing the damage caused by the leak. If it is subsequently discovered that some corrective work is not required, you are not entitled to hold on to the balance of the claim money unless the actual repair is a compromise solution that doesn't fully put you back to where you were before the loss. In other words if the repair is not as good as the original condition of the ceiling, but you can live with it.

It is very unlikely that insurers will call to inspect the repair but if they ever have to call to you in the future for another claim, they might look at the list of items you claimed for the first time and if it is obvious they weren't necessary, they would re-open the file and could throw out your second claim (which may be a substantial one)

baguio

Thanks old youth.

Would there be any consequences for my premiums if they discover that the extent of the corrective work is not the same as first envisaged?

oldyouth

Hi Baguio, I'd be more concerned that it is now a criminal offence to make false representations when making a claim.

I'm not saying you have done anything wrong, but be careful on what you decide. If there are 'extras' in your claim settlement, I would return the difference. If you have cash left over by effecting slightly inferior repairs, you are entitled to keep it. Only you know which it is

The example I usually give is where someone has a perfectly good carpet and a spark flies out and scorches a hole in it. By the terms of your policy, you are entitled to the cost of replacing it. If it is a small hole, I often offer the client 50% of the cost of a replacement carpet, if they want to just throw a rug over the burn mark. I don't care if they buy a cheap old rug to do this. The client is not making a profit because their asset (the perfectly good carpet) has sustained damage, has been devalued significantly and they have been deprived of the previous enjoyment of it in a good condition.

I hope I'm making a bit of sense for you (I'm mortally ill with man flu today)