Turned down for insurance claim

[craft1948]

Further to my previous post http://www.theanswerb...y/Question980504.html
The canopy company told me to make an insurance claim which I did, the assessor has been out today and turned down my claim.
He says it was obvious that my house was built using London bricks (with a cavity) and before fixing the canopy to the wall the installer should have either a) checked the cavity had been filled or b) fixed the canopy at the solid outer edges of the bricks. As things stand the bolts which hold up the canopy just go through the outer brick facing and nothing else.................what do I do (the canopy is still under warranty).

[ubasses]

Have you spoken to the Canopy Company if they installed, surely they are liable

[craft1948]

I have rung them but have an awful feeling they will deny responsiblity. They are going to ring back and I just want a clue as to what to say when they start trying to get out of it.

[bednobs]

take them to court for the cost

[scotman]

Are you in agreement that London Bricks have been used?

[craft1948]

I have rung the canopy company and told them the insurance assessor's findings. They now seem quite amenable to sorting things out and are happy to have a meeting with my builder, so fingers crossed.
Yes scotman my house is built with London bricks.

[bennhoughton]

Hi craft

precisely what are you claiming for?? damage to the canopy and damage to the build itself presumably? I also presume that the loss adjuster is from your house insurer?

to be perfectly honest, there is no reason why your household insurer can turn the claim down for one - london bricks or no london bricks - bricks are bricks and as long as this was stated when taking the insurance policy out, your insurer should have to pay for the damage under the Storm section of your policy. secondly, speak to the canopy installers politley and ask them what they intend to do about the damage? if they say it isnt their fault, request their public liability insurance details and advise you shall be filing a claim against them.

[craft1948]

benn the assessor's decision in turning down the insurance claim was that there was nothing wrong with the bricks before the canopy was fitted, and nothing wrong with the canopy either, but that the fault lies with the way the canopy was fitted to the brickwork, which was inadequate to take the snowfall. They had put bolts through the brickwork but because London bricks have a 'frog' the only thing holding the bolts was the brick fascia, as opposed to for instance, solid engineering bricks.

[bennhoughton]

and where in his insurance policy does it state he can turn down the claim because of those reasons?? ask him....and then ask him why the insurer isnt paying the claim and then seeking to recover from the installers.

[craft1948]

Right benn.......never thought of that.

[ubasses]

when you check the policy you need to look and see if it has any restrictions on making structural modification without letting them know first

[bennhoughton]

ubasses - this is normally true, however, i would doubt this would class as a structural change to be honest

[bennhoughton]

craft - ask the adjuster to point out the section of cover applicable (which will be buildings) and then ask him to show you the exclusion relating to this damage - if he cant do that he cant turn down the claim

if he does do that, let me know which exclusion he is applying and i shall let you know how to combat it, if possible

[The Builder]

Crafty, my synpathies. You really are caught in the middle here.
I'd love to talk to your builder about this. I'll bet he, as with others in the Trade, isn't a big fan of cantilevered structures. They put a hell of a load on their mountings. This is why manufactures usually specify a minimun height of brickwork above the canopy, to counter the turning force imposed by the canopy and wind/snow load etc.
OK, that's just a personal view.
What's important is that it's been there, happliy for four years. This year has seen some pretty unusual extra loads imposed on structures. That's what insurance should be for.
To be fair to the installers, assuming they fitted exactly as the manufacturers dictate, then they have done the job "in good faith". My first thoughts (in your previous Q,) was it might have been a bit of a quick, "cowboy" installation. It's beginning to look as though they simply fitted it using tried and tested standards.
This is only my opinion, but I think the Assessor is struggling. The "frog" business is a nonsense. It's a "dent" in the brick that is fully filled with mortar when laid. It is NOT a void.
Solid bricks are rarely used these days........... certainly not engineering bricks halfway up a standard cavity wall. In fact, many commonly used facing bricks are made with several holes or voids within them as normal.
I'd like to hear your builder's reply when you tell him about the "frog" issue.

It's been there for four years.......... it's been subjected to an abnormal load ........ Insurance companies will habitually clutch at any available straws.

[craft1948]

Right I'm definitely going to ring the insurance company again...........I still haven't received the letter turning my claim down which was supposed to have been sent on Tuesday.