subsidence insurance claim

BryanF

Hi,
can you tell me:
if an insurance claim for subsidence is successful, must that money be spent on said works?

ie. engineer is appointed by person to assess amount of work required to correct subsidence (domestic), insurance company pays out. is there any onus on that person to spend this money?

In this situation the person is considering retro-fitting home and: if the amount of money was substantial maybe demolishing would be worth considering..

thanks for yer help (I had put this in engineering but is probably better here)

Otis Driftwood

There is no onus per se to use an insurance settlement to repair the damage but it beggars the question,why make a claim if you arent going to correct it?

The point of home insurance is reinstatement,ie restoring the property to its pre-claim condition.Making claims then not using the settlement to do what you have received the money for,while not illegal,is very dishonest and its claims like this that have caused and will cause insurance premiums for ordinary people to go up but sure it doesnt matter,insurance fraud/borderline fraud is a victim less crime right.:rolleyes:

You will also have an issue getting quotes going forward.Most insurers will not touch a property that has had any instances of subsidence and unless the work is fully carried out and the property is correctly underpinned with full engineers reports then I wouldnt think any other insurer would touch the property.

BryanF

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

There is no onus per se to use an insurance settlement to repair the damage but it beggars the question,why make a claim if you arent going to correct it?

The point of home insurance is reinstatement,ie restoring the property to its pre-claim condition.Making claims then not using the settlement to do what you have received the money for,while not illegal,is very dishonest and its claims like this that have caused and will cause insurance premiums for ordinary people to go up but sure it doesnt matter,insurance fraud/borderline fraud is a victim less crime right.:rolleyes:

You will also have an issue getting quotes going forward.Most insurers will not touch a property that has had any instances of subsidence and unless the work is fully carried out and the property is correctly underpinned with full engineers reports then I wouldnt think any other insurer would touch the property.

thank you for clarifying that

regarding your suggestion of dishonesty, ill refer you to what I explained is the above situation.

In this situation the person has considered retro-fitting the home but the question must be asked, that if the amount of money (from the claim) was substantial, maybe demolishing and rebuilding the home, should be considered (there is more money to be spent on retro-fitting than whatever the claim returns). demolishing and rebuilding may make more economic sense than restoring the existing property. either way the claim would be spent on bring the property up to current standards.

again thanks for your help in clarifying the legal position. I'll take care of the moral position myself...

ravima

its not usual for insurer to pay out 100% of subsidence claim up front. Most, if not all, will pay in installments as the work is done.

BryanF

ravima wrote: »

its not usual for insurer to pay out 100% of subsidence claim up front. Most, if not all, will pay in installments as the work is done.

oh ok, so it is very much dependant on the work done. thanks for that