Axa home insurance
Discussion
My dear ole mums wall got blown over last week, and she's on holiday. So I did the sonly thing and made arrangements to claim on buildings insurance.
To cut a long story short, because the wall is 30-40 years old, it is classed a wear and tear, and AXA will not pay a penny.
I asked the woman at the end of the phone, "so if a 40 year old tree fell down and hit a house, you won't pay a penny either..." To which she said, "oh, its not the same..."
Suffice to say I am going to contact the ombusman tomorrow.
Why do we even pay house insurance?
To cut a long story short, because the wall is 30-40 years old, it is classed a wear and tear, and AXA will not pay a penny.
I asked the woman at the end of the phone, "so if a 40 year old tree fell down and hit a house, you won't pay a penny either..." To which she said, "oh, its not the same..."
Suffice to say I am going to contact the ombusman tomorrow.
Why do we even pay house insurance?
Insurance does not cover wear & tear. If it was fully maintained, then it would be covered. If the roof blows off a house and the roof is in a state of disrepair, then the wear & tear is probaby the reason the reaal reason it blew off, rather than a storm. You don;t get "betterment" under buildings insurance.
Look at it this way. If you drove a 10 year old BMW M3 and wrote it off, would you expect your insurance to pay out for a brand new M3?
If the M3 then turned out to have no MOT, no brakes and no engine when it went off a cliff, do you think you'd get the money for a "new" 10 year old M3?
It's not just AXA that apply this rule either.
Bear in mind there are many differing levels of cover under home insurance policies, so buying the cheapest sometimes doesn't even cover structures not directly connected to / part of the structure of a house, irrespective of how well maintained it may be.
Look at it this way. If you drove a 10 year old BMW M3 and wrote it off, would you expect your insurance to pay out for a brand new M3?
If the M3 then turned out to have no MOT, no brakes and no engine when it went off a cliff, do you think you'd get the money for a "new" 10 year old M3?
It's not just AXA that apply this rule either.
Bear in mind there are many differing levels of cover under home insurance policies, so buying the cheapest sometimes doesn't even cover structures not directly connected to / part of the structure of a house, irrespective of how well maintained it may be.
R1 Loon said:
Insurance does not cover wear & tear. If it was fully maintained, then it would be covered. If the roof blows off a house and the roof is in a state of disrepair, then the wear & tear is probaby the reason the reaal reason it blew off, rather than a storm. You don;t get "betterment" under buildings insurance.
Where does he say how it was maintained?R1 Loon said:
Look at it this way. If you drove a 10 year old BMW M3 and wrote it off, would you expect your insurance to pay out for a brand new M3?
If the M3 then turned out to have no MOT, no brakes and no engine when it went off a cliff, do you think you'd get the money for a "new" 10 year old M3?
Where does he say how much he expects them to pay/contribute?If the M3 then turned out to have no MOT, no brakes and no engine when it went off a cliff, do you think you'd get the money for a "new" 10 year old M3?
R1 Loon said:
It's not just AXA that get away with this crap either.
EFAR1 Loon said:
Bear in mind there are many differing levels of cover under home insurance policies, so buying the cheapest sometimes doesn't even cover structures not directly connected to / part of the structure of a house, irrespective of how well maintained it may be.
Where does it say what level of cover he has?Insurance companies do not want to pay out - fair enough that is their business model.
The fact is that we can and should challenge the initial response of 'Get stuffed, pay out, us, an insurance company! Just what do you think we are a charity?'
I have challenged their 'rules' on three occasions, so far the score is 2-1 to me.
davemac250 said:
Where does he say how it was maintained?
Where does he say how much he expects them to pay/contribute?
Where does it say what level of cover he has?
Insurance companies do not want to pay out - fair enough that is their business model.
The fact is that we can and should challenge the initial response of 'Get stuffed, pay out, us, an insurance company! Just what do you think we are a charity?'
I have challenged their 'rules' on three occasions, so far the score is 2-1 to me.
He doesn't, but the suggestion of a 30 - 40 yer old wall suggests it wasn't.Where does he say how much he expects them to pay/contribute?
Where does it say what level of cover he has?
Insurance companies do not want to pay out - fair enough that is their business model.
The fact is that we can and should challenge the initial response of 'Get stuffed, pay out, us, an insurance company! Just what do you think we are a charity?'
I have challenged their 'rules' on three occasions, so far the score is 2-1 to me.
Again he doesn't, but I'll lay odds of 10-1 that he expects full replacement with new.
Once again it doesn't. However, I didnt guess which he had, I merely made a point.
As for not paying out. I've currently got £1.2billion held on reserve for payouts under my area, so I reckon paying out is nore regular than your "bloke down the pub" urban myth mentality.
Oooo well done challeging the rules, clearly a man who buys the cheapest, then in full on pedant mode, bores the poor handler to the verge of death, even though the incident wasn't covered.
Maybe he should have scanned his policy documents taken photos etc, so that you could question the interpretation of a "," where it should be a ";" and explain to us all why you always win.
R1 Loon said:
davemac250 said:
Where does he say how it was maintained?
Where does he say how much he expects them to pay/contribute?
Where does it say what level of cover he has?
Insurance companies do not want to pay out - fair enough that is their business model.
The fact is that we can and should challenge the initial response of 'Get stuffed, pay out, us, an insurance company! Just what do you think we are a charity?'
I have challenged their 'rules' on three occasions, so far the score is 2-1 to me.
Where does he say how much he expects them to pay/contribute?
Where does it say what level of cover he has?
Insurance companies do not want to pay out - fair enough that is their business model.
The fact is that we can and should challenge the initial response of 'Get stuffed, pay out, us, an insurance company! Just what do you think we are a charity?'
I have challenged their 'rules' on three occasions, so far the score is 2-1 to me.
R1 Loon said:
He doesn't, but the suggestion of a 30 - 40 yer old wall suggests it wasn't.
Why, my house in the UK is closer to 400 years old, perfectly well maintained thanks.R1 Loon said:
Again he doesn't, but I'll lay odds of 10-1 that he expects full replacement with new.
Once again it doesn't. However, I didnt guess which he had, I merely made a point.
Hairy muff.Once again it doesn't. However, I didnt guess which he had, I merely made a point.
R1 Loon said:
As for not paying out. I've currently got £1.2billion held on reserve for payouts under my area, so I reckon paying out is nore regular than your "bloke down the pub" urban myth mentality.
Ha, ha, ha.So, are you going to say that insurance companies want to pay out?
That is someone being naive, or just plain daft?
I pointed out that is the business model - to not pay out. Anything else would be ridiculous.
I accept that is part of dealing with insurance companies, who as I stated are not charities.
R1 Loon said:
Oooo well done challeging the rules, clearly a man who buys the cheapest, then in full on pedant mode, bores the poor handler to the verge of death, even though the incident wasn't covered.
Challenging the rules? Get over yourself! It is hardly challenging the rules to insist that something that is covered, is paid out for, it is enforcing the rules.One of my best friends is a loss adjuster, I have won (and note I never said I always win) as I follow his advice.
Anecdotally, one claim where I won, was for theft.
The knock back was on the grounds I had not taken enough care of my belongings by leaving my skis outside a restaurant.
After much to and fro I sent a picture of someone trying to use a toilet wearing skis with the line 'This doesn't work' I was then paid for my loses.
Pick through that and tell me where a travel policy should not cover a theft in those circumstances?
R1 Loon said:
Maybe he should have scanned his policy documents taken photos etc, so that you could question the interpretation of a "," where it should be a ";" and explain to us all why you always win.
Don't be a nob, it does you a disservice. I think the point that R1 was trying to make was that it's not normal for a well maintainted 40-year old wall to be 'blown over' unless there's hurricane force winds. If there were such winds which resulted in similar damage to other properties in the area the claim would probably be paid. But as an isolated incident, a 40 year old wall being 'blown over' suggests that it wasn't the strongest structure prior to being felled.
Dr_Gonzo said:
I think the point that R1 was trying to make was that it's not normal for a well maintainted 40-year old wall to be 'blown over' unless there's hurricane force winds. If there were such winds which resulted in similar damage to other properties in the area the claim would probably be paid. But as an isolated incident, a 40 year old wall being 'blown over' suggests that it wasn't the strongest structure prior to being felled.
Why does it have to be wind it could have been caused previously by errosion at the base of the wall and made the structure weak and unsteady, the wind however strong or weak was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.Obviously this is just speculative as none of us apart from the OP know the full story.
Edited by The Walrus on Thursday 22 July 13:46
Dr_Gonzo said:
I think the point that R1 was trying to make was that it's not normal for a well maintainted 40-year old wall to be 'blown over' unless there's hurricane force winds. If there were such winds which resulted in similar damage to other properties in the area the claim would probably be paid. But as an isolated incident, a 40 year old wall being 'blown over' suggests that it wasn't the strongest structure prior to being felled.
Thank you, that was the point.In quick answer to Davemac250 - the theft claim may or may not have been covered depending on the nature of the contract. By way of example, your car insurance would not pay out for theft if you left the car with the engine running (like a lot do to wram it up in sevr frost), or if the keys were in the car (say at a petrol station), as you failed to take adequate security measures.
Some case studies from the Ombudsman where they support the insurer in 2 of 3 cases.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
The Walrus said:
Dr_Gonzo said:
I think the point that R1 was trying to make was that it's not normal for a well maintainted 40-year old wall to be 'blown over' unless there's hurricane force winds. If there were such winds which resulted in similar damage to other properties in the area the claim would probably be paid. But as an isolated incident, a 40 year old wall being 'blown over' suggests that it wasn't the strongest structure prior to being felled.
Why does it have to be wind it could have been caused previously by errosion at the base of the wall and made the structure weak and unsteady, the wind however strong or weak was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.Obviously this is just speculative as none of us apart from the OP know the full story.
Edited by The Walrus on Thursday 22 July 13:46
As I've written here before I worked in claims for 12 years, seven as a loss adjuster. To be honest I enjoyed giving away other people's (Insurers) money where it was due. Repudiating claims was unpleasant because I didn't/don't like upsetting people and 99% of the time it became a pain in the arse. I was always happier when I could agree a payment.
There were always the pub experts who would see me in Court because I "get paid a bigger bonus the more claims that get turned down" (Actually I was paid a percentage of the company's fee to insurers which in turn was linked to the size of the settlement so quite the opposite but I digress). Not once did any of them ever succeed in doing so although quite a few sensible people who put forward a structured and reasonable argument received ex-gratia payments.
I'd like to want to know a lot more about this case before deciding. As others have said, good walls don't just fall over.
There were always the pub experts who would see me in Court because I "get paid a bigger bonus the more claims that get turned down"
(Actually I was paid a percentage of the company's fee to insurers which in turn was linked to the size of the settlement so quite the opposite but I digress). Not once did any of them ever succeed in doing so although quite a few sensible people who put forward a structured and reasonable argument received ex-gratia payments.I'd like to want to know a lot more about this case before deciding. As others have said, good walls don't just fall over.
Edited by Flintstone on Tuesday 10th August 11:59
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff