Thread: House Insurance coverning Burst Pipes

I am covered for burst pipes with my GIO insurance, as well as (as far as I can tell) all naturally occurring water damage.

Speaking as a former loss adjustor, there are some things I can tell you that may help understand why it was rejected. I'm sure it won't make you feel any better though.

There is a difference between a burst pipe and one that has been leaking over a period of time. This interpretation varies between insurance companies and adjustors. It's a bit of a crap shoot as sometimes they pay them and sometimes not. One thing that often works is to make a big scene with the claims officer and demand to speak to a claims manager. if you push them hard enough they may see your point of view.

There are many things about home insurance that should be regulated by a government authority so as to avoid these situations. But seeing I'm not in charge or making the recommendations, it probably won't ever happen. This type of claim rejection has been going on for many decades and hasn't been properly addressed. All home insurance policies should cover all unforeseeable events that cause damage but they don't. The biggest area of payouts for insurers is for water damage so it's in their best interest to restrict as many claims as they can.

Good luck.

Steve

While I tend to agree with Maggs that a leak is different from a burst, sometimes I wonder what we are paying for.

Recently our dogs got tangled up in the cables connecting our video projector to the TV and pulled the projector onto the floor causing $1600 worth of damage. This was not covered by our policy because it was, as clearly stipulated in our policy, not a "specific or defined" event. So it appears after all we are paying each year we are only covered for very specific things. So, as I argued with the company, if a mouse knocks over a candle and sets the house on fire, seeing as this is not a specified event are we still covered. They were very cagey about this . . . . . . and they said every event would need to be looked at. It seems to me they have if they need it a "get out clause" for just about everything that happens.

BTW the reason the projector was so expensive to fix is that it has a special long throw lens that very few projectors have. A replacement projector with a similar lens is well over $4k

Originally Posted by BobL

While I tend to agree with Maggs that a leak is different from a burst, sometimes I wonder what we are paying for.

Recently our dogs got tangled up in the cables connecting our video projector to the TV and pulled the projector onto the floor causing $1600 worth of damage. This was not covered by our policy because it was, as clearly stipulated in our policy, not a "specific or defined" event. So it appears after all we are paying each year we are only covered for very specific things. So, as I argued with the company, if a mouse knocks over a candle and sets the house on fire, seeing as this is not a specified event are we still covered. They were very cagey about this . . . . . . and they said every event would need to be looked at. It seems to me they have if they need it a "get out clause" for just about everything that happens.

BTW the reason the projector was so expensive to fix is that it has a special long throw lens that very few projectors have. A replacement projector with a similar lens is well over $4k

That event would require accidental coverage in the policy schedule. Once again some insurers include this and some don't. There should be a standard policy and schedule of events across the board. To read and understand every insurance company policy would take a year and the layman could not be expected to fully comprehend it all anyway. Bottom line, joe average doesn't stand a chance.

Steve

The big print giveth and the small print taketh away. Even though it's smaller it takes up most of the policy.