How would you feel if you received a scary letter from an insurance company accusing you of “negligence” and saying you were legally responsible for paying for repairs to your neighbour’s house?
That’s what happened to 82-year-old Sabata Picone after water leaked from her property into the house next door. The letter she received said that “you have failed in your common law duty” to prevent damage to someone else’s property and wanted to know how she intended to pay the bill, which could potentially run into hundreds or even thousands of pounds.
The letter was from her neighbour’s insurer, Direct Line. Picone has insurance with Aviva and assumed she would be OK. After all, isn’t a bit of water damage from a burst pipe precisely the sort of thing that home insurance is supposed to cover?
However, Aviva refused to help with the claim for the neighbour’s damage, saying that because Picone had buildings cover only, and not contents insurance, she wasn’t covered for “third party liability”.
But if Picone had also been with Direct Line she would have been fine.
It’s a case that is likely to prompt some people to dig out their policy documents to check exactly what they are and aren’t covered for.
Guardian Money can reveal that for Picone a happy ending is in sight – but it’s a reminder that with home insurance, things aren’t always as straightforward as you might think. The Financial Ombudsman Service, which had to intervene in this case, said the distinction between buildings and contents cover “is often not fully understood”. It added: “Consumers can easily believe they are covered for all eventualities when in reality they are not.”
There are thought to be several million people in the UK who don’t have home contents insurance. The industry used to say that about one in four households in the UK didn’t have it. An Aviva report from 2015 estimated that 31% of families didn’t have any contents cover in place.
It’s not mandatory and some people might thinktory shows.
The Direct Line letter that Picone received in February said it had been advised that the damage caused to its customer’s house was “due to your negligence in failing to call out an emergency plumber within a reasonable timescale” to repair the burst pipe. The letter said that if she had insurance for this type of incident, she could make a claim. Alternatively, it added, she must inform Direct Line within 21 days whether she would accept liability “and provide proposals for payment”.
Aviva initially advised Picone that it would deal with the matter, but later rejected the claim. It said that under the terms of the policy contents insurance was required if the policyholder was both the owner and the occupier of the property.
Picone – via her daughter – complained to the ombudsman. Her daughter had arranged her mother’s buildings policy and said that at no point was she made aware of this exclusion or that the cover was limited because she hadn’t taken out contents insurance.
The ombudsman found in Picone’s favour. In a ruling that could be important for others, it said: “It’s not fair to expect a consumer who both owns and occupies a property to fully understand that contents cover is required in order for third party liability cover to apply.”
It said Aviva should cover Picone for any damages she became legally liable to pay her neighbour as if she’d had the relevant cover.
Aviva confirmed that it had “agreed to accept the claim in this instance”. It said: “Last year we reviewed our home insurance policy documents to include highlight boxes to draw attention to more parts of the policy.”
If you require a comprehensive insurance policy call us on 02076 912 409.
Categorised in: Uncategorized