|
|
|
|
 |
Water Damage -
- All the houses in this suburban road had been flooded for a second time within 10 years. On the first occasion the insurance companies involved had paid for repairs and redecoration, but ignored the possibility of water retention in the sub-floors which could cause damage. They assumed, wrongly, that the water would drain and evaporate. We were appointed by all the affected owners, and after arranging for the properties to be dried out, we carried out investigations to establish the extent of damage, including exposing all of the sub-floors. Unsurprisingly, a number of the properties were affected by wet and dry rot from the previous flooding, but which were excluded perils by the terms of the policies. Convinced that the only reason for this rot damage was the neglect of the insurers and their loss adjusters in their approach to repairing the previous damage, we set about tracing all the policies which existed at the time of the first flood, and persuaded all the previous insurers to meet the full costs of repair to the sub-floors; whilst getting the current insurers to pay for all the damage directly traceable to the latest incident. If there had been no second flood, all of those owners would eventually have discovered, and had to pay for, major floor and sub-floor repairs, without possibility of claim.
- To our clients' horror, and for no apparent reason, water started to come up through the floorboards of their home. As quickly as it was pumped out it refilled the sub-floor void. The water authority was alerted, the mains supply and drainage systems checked, but the source of the water could not be found. The insurance company suggested the problem might be rising water tables, which was uninsured; and in the absence of being able to identify an escape from a fixed water pipe, or the problem having arisen through storm damage, they said the claim was not admissible. The policy did however cover 'accidental damage', so if we were able to demonstrate the occurrence had arisen through a cause which was not specifically excluded by the policy, the insurers would be obligated to pay. We carried out extensive ground investigations, and also looked into the physical and geological history of the site on which the house stood. We concluded, on a balance of probability, that the problem had arisen as a result of disturbance to a dormant underground stream by the actions of the water company recharging their boreholes. We could not prove it, nor would the water company admit it, but it was sufficient for the insurers to agree to pay. We cured the problem by incorporating a drainage ring main around the house to siphon off the water, and repaired and redecorated the property. Fine print can work against insurers as well as for them.
- A burst water main caused major damage to all the basements in this Islington road, filling the flats with water levels up to five foot high. Our client owned three of those flats, and although the buildings were fully insured, there was only a very small amount of contents insurance cover. We brought in surveyors to monitor the drying out of the buildings, prepare specifications and administer the reinstatement works; and we then prepared priced schedules of all the contents damage. As the water company were responsible for the burst water main, we were able to negotiate recovery of all the client's losses, both insured and uninsured, together with some significant improvements to the properties at no cost to the client. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 water companies have a strict liability for losses arising from the services they maintain, whether or not negligence is involved.
|
|
 |
|
|
|