Rank: Forum user 
|
Hypothetical scenario - someone living in a tower block (similar to Grenfell tower) has a small fire in their house or large escape of water, they phone their insurance company and a surveyor comes out to validate the insurance claim. The surveyor notes that the passive fire protection measures such as a fire door or some compartmentation between floors needs replacing but they currently don’t meet the building regulations because whoever originaly put them in place did a poor job or did it on the cheap. The homeowners insurance (like all home insurance I think) is a contract to replace “like for like” does this mean the insurance company does not upgrade the passive protection measures when it does the repair because its is replacing like for like?. Wouldn’t this apply to flammable cladding as well if the law is not retrospective in these cases?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think you may be reading too much in to what an assessor will look at, investigate, sample and test.
You mention "like for like" this IMHO would be white goods, decoration and furnishings rather than the fabric of the building.
Should the event be a buildings rather than contents claim (most HMO and flat residents are contents cover) then refurbishment would be to current building regulations.
You then get in to serious hypothetical if a fire in a single flat would warrant the complete reclad of a building - this would be the property owners issue, not the tennant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think you may be reading too much in to what an assessor will look at, investigate, sample and test.
You mention "like for like" this IMHO would be white goods, decoration and furnishings rather than the fabric of the building.
Should the event be a buildings rather than contents claim (most HMO and flat residents are contents cover) then refurbishment would be to current building regulations.
You then get in to serious hypothetical if a fire in a single flat would warrant the complete reclad of a building - this would be the property owners issue, not the tennant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Perhaps the insurance company has a duty to first inform the landlord and if that does not elicit a response, the fire safety authority. If they don’t they might be liable under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act “To conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in their employment (were not) exposed to risks to their health or safety.” See thread “Scope of HASWA “above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel  Perhaps the insurance company has a duty to first inform the landlord and if that does not elicit a response, the fire safety authority.
Sorry but that would never work. A Kurdziel not sure what your occupation is but if you are a H&S consultant, do you report every client that is not compliant with H&S legislation to the authorities?
I am a surveyor for an insurance company - dealing with commercial risk management surveys. These are done to hopefully prevent losses and benefit my employer (the insurer) and the client. We use the art of gentle persuasion to get them to improve the risk, whether that be fire precautions, security, H&S or products compliance. The majority of clients can understand what we want but for those that simply refuse, our only real sanction is to cancel the policy. If policyholders knew that an insurance surveyor may report them to the authorities post visit, we would never get through the door. As for the original question re doors, cladding etc. Insurance policies put the policyholder back in the same position they were in before the loss. So on a commercial policy where we insure buildings and contents etc, we would replace the damage cladding with materials that meet regulations. If undamaged sections need upgrading, that is down to the policyholder to finance. In the flat scenario, if the fire doors were not damaged by the loss, it is doubtful the claims adjuster would even look at them. They are claims investigators / adjusters - not fire risk assessors.
|
 1 user thanked stevie40 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No consultant me, just full time H&S. I am of course confident that my employer complies 100% with all legal and moral H&S requirements (cough, cough) I am also tending towards the sarcastic. Looking at the discussion as to whether the insurer who noticed that there were issues such as the cladding which were outside their usual remit, I was speculating as to whether the duties under Reg 3 could or ever would be extended to create positive duty to report someone else’s omissions. I doubt it but then sometimes people find a way to stretch the law when it suits them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think I got it, if parts of the pasive fire protection measures where part of a valid insurance claim but didn't meet current building regs then they would have to be replaced by products that met current regulatory standards ( like for like with a bit of betterment).
Edited by user 08 November 2018 13:18:49(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Most commercial property policies contain a clause called "EC and Public Authorities (Non Damage)" or similar. If there is Damage to the building, the insurer will replace the damaged part to current standards, and they will also pay a contribution towards the replacement of undamaged parts on a similar basis (capped at something like 15%).
Cover will exclude the replacement of undamaged parts where a notice had already been served on a policyholder or where there was an existing requirement to replace the property in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Mr Insurance Most commercial property policies contain a clause called "EC and Public Authorities (Non Damage)" or similar. If there is Damage to the building, the insurer will replace the damaged part to current standards, and they will also pay a contribution towards the replacement of undamaged parts on a similar basis (capped at something like 15%).
Cover will exclude the replacement of undamaged parts where a notice had already been served on a policyholder or where there was an existing requirement to replace the property in question.
would that apply to domestic property as well (such as a block of domestic flats)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Some do, some don't - you would need to check the wording. Policies do however exclude defective workmanship, so it is likely that the insurer would exclude the repair of defective products. The cover is intended to apply where legistaltion has changed, so as building which was perfectly acceptable needs to be upgrdaeed to meet modern standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.