Structural Insurance - who pays for engineering costs?

makeorbrake

I'm currently in conflict with a structural insurer (structural as opposed to regular home insurance). Liability has been accepted. As part of their process and the policy document that was in place, it was incumbent upon me to prove my claim. To that end, I incurred costs (consulting engineers).

The contract/policy document states that the insurer covers engineering consultancy and other fees reasonably incurred ...."but shall not include costs or fees incurred by the Policyholder in investigating and/or preparing a claim".

Having proven my claim, is it reasonable to expect that these costs now be covered by the insurer? Does common law trump contract law in this instance? Afterall, I wouldn't have incurred these costs were it not for the negligence of their client (the builder / developer).

Sue Pa Key Pa

Generally speaking, the onus is on the insured to prove their claim and costs incurred in preparing it are not covered under any policy. However, if insurers decline or reduce your claim and you incur costs, such as engineer's fees, in proving their decision was wrong, then they should reimburse you.

makeorbrake

The costs in proving my claim have been (to me and my modest finances) substantial (and may rise yet - as I've only secured a certain level of liability). For sure, it's in their damned policy document and they have spelt it out to me. However, is it not inequitable? Granted, if I spent money to determine a claim - only to be found that I was wrong, then I agree that cost should be borne by me. However, if all of this has come about due to their negligence (by proxy...ie. the negligence of their client - the builder/developer), isn't it only fair and equitable that such expenses should be reimbursed?

Can this be challenged should the matter go to court (as seems likely)?

Sue Pa Key Pa

makeorbrake wrote: »

However, if all of this has come about due to their negligence (by proxy...ie. the negligence of their client - the builder/developer),

That's stretching it to the extreme. That's like saying your car insurer is negligent for taking you on as a policyholder if you break a red light and cream another motorist.

The policy provides cover to the policyholder and is limited by this condition. If you are out of pocket after the claim is paid, sue the builder for the difference in court

makeorbrake

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

That's stretching it to the extreme. That's like saying your car insurer is negligent for taking you on as a policyholder if you break a red light and cream another motorist.

I don't agree in any way, shape or form. It's not equitable - and the analogy presented doesn't equate to this scenario. We're talking about hundreds of euro (so far).

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

The policy provides cover to the policyholder and is limited by this condition.

The regulator should step in and amend it - i.e. you can't prove your claim - costs with you. You prove that the other party was negligent - costs with them. They also have the right to carry out their own assessment (from the get go - as a normal house or car insurer would do) but choose not to.
In the analogy that you present, I (as the driver) am negligent. Full responsibility with me. In the scenario I have presented, I have spent a considerable sum to prove that the insurer is liable. i.e. that this negligence falls with them. Why should I pick up the cost of that! Remember, I paid for the full cost of this insurance cover by way of the full sales price of the house that I purchased.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

The policy provides cover to the policyholder and is limited by this condition. If you are out of pocket after the claim is paid, sue the builder for the difference in court

Good Luck Sue Pa! I presume you're not a recent arrival to this country (or to the business)?

Developer dissolved a number of years ago.
Engineer that signed off on the development dissolved a number of years ago (along with their pi indemnity cover).

Sue Pa Key Pa

Don't patronise me when I have many decades of experience in this field and am only trying to help you. Let's get one thing clear from the start. No insurance company ever built a shoddy house, approved shoddy plans, crashed a car, stole property or caused someone to trip on a pothole. Your beef is with the person or business who did you harm, not the insurance company that only provides funds to cover their liability to you. If the policy leaves a shortfall, again, your issue is with the builder

I repeat what I said previously about all insurance policies, the cost of compiling your claim is never covered and every policy contains exclusions, excesses, terms and conditions that are available for consideration before cover is put in place

makeorbrake

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Don't patronise me

I don't know where you are reading that. You have taken offense perhaps. I did not set out to cause you offense - please do not suggest that I have.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

when I have many decades of experience in this field

I don't doubt that you have many years of experience in the field.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

and am only trying to help you.

You'll note that I clicked the 'thanks' button on your first post? Secondly, this is a discussion forum at the end of the day - if I don't agree with something (even if that is the standard practice of an industry ...ergo, I may not be disagreeing with you personally - rather industry practices) what could possibly be wrong with that?

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Let's get one thing clear from the start No insurance company ever built a shoddy house, approved shoddy plans, crashed a car, stole property or caused someone to trip on a pothole. Your beef is with the person or business who did you harm, not the insurance company that only provides funds to cover their liability to you. If the policy leaves a shortfall, again, your issue is with the builder

And lets get a few things clear from the get go also (if I am to take the same tone as you); The only thing that applies here is the 'ever built a shoddy house' part.
With that, it's incumbent on an insurance company to assess risk is it not? Having taken on that risk, they need to fess up and accept responsibility for their actions.
Yes, primarily my beef is with the developer / builder - and I asked you to consider the reality in the world of structural claims in the aftermath of the Celtic Tiger years - i.e. that those individuals are beyond reach.
However, I bought this property with the reassurance of their being a 10 year structural guarantee in place should there be any catastrophe in terms of the build. Therefore, my 'beef' isn't exclusively with the developer. Perhaps your industry colleagues could have saved me, them (and a hell of a lot of other consumers) a hell of a lot of grief had they done their due diligence and assessed risk properly at the time.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I repeat what I said previously about all insurance policies, the cost of compiling your claim is never covered

And I repeat that I didn't disagree with you - I acknowledged the fact. However, I reserve the right to disagree with the practice when it comes to a structural insurance product (or should I not express my opinion - would that suit your world view better?).

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

every policy contains exclusions, excesses, terms and conditions that are available for consideration before cover is put in place

Once again, that's clear to me when I go out and purchase an insurance product directly. I wasn't involved in putting this structural insurance in place. Yes, you say my beef is with the developer. However, if we could assume the developer to always be around, then there would be no need for a product like this to be in place, would there?

My bottom line on the matter remains that I am wrongly out of pocket as a result of the negligence of others (and that lies between builder and insurer - not exclusive to one - it lies with both). I didn't have any input into putting that cover in place but you can be damn sure that I paid for every cent of it (via the purchase price of the house).

Now, thank you for your initial post on this matter. I do not thank you for your last post with your ill-conceived 'patronising' assertion (I don't do patronising) as if to say that I don't have the right to discuss a matter on a discussion board and articulate my point of view simply because you have 'years of experience in the industry'.

If we're going to start labelling each other, then that's arrogance.

Sue Pa Key Pa

[QUOTE=makeorbrake;102405404
Good Luck Sue Pa! I presume you're not a recent arrival to this country (or to the business)?
QUOTE]

How else should I take that comment?

Anyway, proceed as you see fit

makeorbrake

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

[QUOTE=makeorbrake;102405404
Good Luck Sue Pa! I presume you're not a recent arrival to this country (or to the business)?
QUOTE]

How else should I take that comment?

Anyway, proceed as you see fit

Firstly could you not take me at my word when I said I did not set out to 'patronise' you - and let that be an end to it? Would that not be a human, pragmatic approach?

As regards your misinterpretation of that comment, in the context of what it answered, I can't imagine how you could have misinterpreted it.

"Good Luck" - as in Good Luck trying to pursue a celtic tiger builder for defects (seeing as the vast majority of them - particularly those that built poor quality developments - are long since dissolved. If (as I assumed you were in the industry, this would have been evident to you).

"I presume you are not a recent arrival to the country" - ergo I assume that you are aware of what went on during the celtic tiger era ref. standards of build, etc.

"(or to the business)" - I presumed that as it was clear to me that you displayed a level of knowledge on the subject yet you accused me of being 'patronising' backing that up by saying "Don't patronise me when I have many decades of experience in this field".

I acknowledged your expertise and thanked you for it. As regards patronising, I don't engage in that type of behaviour (certainly not in this instance and if anyone can ever find an example of same, I can assure you I would have been oblivious to doing so).


As regards 'proceed as you see fit', not sure where that fits into what you raised in your last 2 posts otherwise - but yes, I intend to advance matters in so far as I can. That may mean that I am simply on the hook for those costs - if that can't be helped so be it (but I have a right to an opinion and I don't agree with that being the case in this particular instance). You went on about other type of insurance - types of insurance in which I personally would have negotiated/agreed to personally with the insurer. For example, I have no issue with their being an excess on house/home insurance - once it's up front, clarified and agreed. I do in the case where a product is agreed between 2 other parties where the costs involved are significant (by comparison) - and where the loss suffered has not been my fault (unlike instances with other types of insurance where the insured may have been responsible).

In conclusion, I thank you for taking the time out to answer my query initially. It was helpful even if I don't agree with industry practice in this regard (and I'm entitled to hold that opinion).
As regards what came in your last 2 posts, do I care for those?...not so much.