We have an external soil pipe which goes through the polycarbonate roof of a conservatory and is boxed in below that down to ground level.
The soil pipe has cracked and a chunk broken away above the level of the polycarbonate roof. The soil pipe is made from some kind of asbestos.
When the upstairs bog is flushed, a trickle of water runs down the roof and into the guttering.
None of this seemed to be causing a major problem however I now think this water is also coming down the outside of the soil pipe and down inside the boxed in section.
Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to be storm damage just the general age and wear on the pipe (50 years old).
If the work is to be done I would like to combine the soil pipe with a second bath waste pipe which runs to a separate drain, to enable the drains to be combined and the bath waste drain to be got rid of. Would the insurers be willing to pay for just "their" bit but allow this extra work to be done as part of the same job?
Wear and tear is not usually covered - we had drains collapse and received the same information from our insurers. Fortunately, someone remembered that a lorry had been driven onto the drive and that must have caused the problem. Perhaps, now you think about it, you too remember a similar incident ;)
As you say, fair wear and tear - not covered by insurance. Even if your policy had accidental damage cover and it got broken completely - say by falling against it whilst cleaning the conservatory roof, you would have to admit its previous state and the insurance company would pay little or nothing. A loss adjuster would quickly spot that the crack was long-standing and/or would be very suspicious if you had aready disposed of the bits, should your memory get a little vague about its previous condition.
You do have to fix it as it is a health hazard. IIRC, it is actually a legal requirement. If it is asbestos, then expect it to cost something silly.
Depends on the insurer - many will simply take your three quotations and give you a cheque. Others will appoint a contractor - with whom you will have to negotiate for any extra work. But your insurer is unlikely to pay anything at all.
It will be asbestos cement if it is, which is harmless and does not have onerous disposal requirement - not that will make any difference to the many asbestos scam firms who will indeed try to charge you a fortune.
Surely damage to other things caused by wear and tear is covered? For example, if sewage from a worn out drain flows onto the carpets they would be covered right?
"Wear and tear is not usually covered - we had drains collapse and received the same information from our insurers. Fortunately, someone remembered that a lorry had been driven onto the drive and that must have caused the problem. Perhaps, now you think about it, you too remember a similar incident ;)"
You are (nudge nudge, wink wink) advocating fraud lying and theft aren't you? And I am sure that you see yourself as a respectable citizen.
Have a think. What you suggest means that the rest of us will have to pay for a fraudulent claim.
Did your Mummy ever explain the words Right and Wrong?
For a catastrophic event - yes. However you have failed to minimise your loss by repairing the leak as soon as you noticed it. Long term damage caused by neglected maintenance is not covered.
The damage to the carpet isn't wear and tear. IIRC, most policies have a bit somewhere about maintaining the property
- so if the damage is caused as a result of failing to adequately maintain the property, they could refuse to pay out. If the damage was caused over a long period, rather than a one-off incident - then it would be hard to say it was as a result of an accident rather than neglect.
OTOH, I have been amazed by how understanding some insurance assessors can be - I had a pipe come apart (solvent weld plastic and the plumber had apparently missed one joint) and yet they agreed to cover the damage. The joint had held together for at least a decade and only fell apart when we had guests that used their shower, rather than their bath.
The former assertion is flawed - the latter is _certainly_ not the case and I would contest it vigorously.
Have a think - you may find that you are extrapolating too much from a wink ;)
Not only that, but the concepts behind them as well. That explanation, by implication at least, included guidance about the civilities of not making personal comments without considerably more information than seems to have been available here. And, for much the same reason, I shall assume that no offence was intended to the memory of my recently departed mother.
"PeterMcC" wrote | caledonianstill | > We have an external soil pipe which goes through the polycarbonate | > roof of a conservatory ... | Fortunately, someone remembered that a lorry had been driven onto | the drive and that must have caused the problem. Perhaps, now you | think about it, you too remember a similar incident ;)
I'd love to be in the insurance office when that one comes through ... lorry on a conservatory roof.
Yes, that would be covered, but the insurers would probably try to claim their money back from the owner of the drain as their lack of maintenance caused the spill.
Resulting water damage is usually covered. The source of the leak, a pipe, that is leaking due to wear an tear or faulty workmanship is rarely covered in insurance policies.
Mabon
Sim>>>>Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to > > be
Hmm, have a google for asbestos cement and then decide whether it's "harmless". General consensus seems to be that it contains 10-15% asbestos fibre, and can be pretty nasty stuff.
Unfortunately I have 1.5 sheets to remove from a pretty inaccessible (badly made, butts right up to the garden fence) extension to make way for a conservatory, so I've been doing some reading on this. Seems to be that as long as I keep it wet and have a suitably high standard mask and overalls that I'll be fine. Providing of course I don't attack it with an air hammer, power tools are also a no-no. Looks like I'll either be removing it by pushing it from the inside, or spending a looooong time removing the roofing nails they've secured it with :-(
It is 10-15% Chrysotile - white asbestos - you breath dozens of fibres of it every day. The only recorded harm caused by Chrysotile is amongst those who have worked in atmospheres laden with it for decades.
Any reasonable mask will do - it doesn't need to be exotic. Use water with some detergent added and if you are really paranoid wait for a nice wet rainy day.
If you do the latter you would certainly be exposing yourself to the greatest, and well known, risk of asbestos cement. Old asbestos cement sheets are very fragile and a number of people have been killed falling through them.
Hmm, well seeing as at worst I'd only be falling through a wall (the sheets are on a sheltered wall that butts up to a garden fence), I'm feeling pretty sure that I'm safe as far as this goes. You're right about them being fragile, I pulled off a piece last night with my hands.
Absolutely wrong. Chrysotile causes mesothelioma. I don't know quite where you believe harm is "recorded" but there are numerous claims every year from plumbers, carpenters and decorators who have contracted mesothelioma due to exposure 10 or more years ago to (relatively) small quantities of chrysotile eg when sawing panels or removing asbestos guttering. The epidemic is a growing one.
A concise summary of the health hazards of asbestos can be found at
Claims encouraged by opportunistic lawyers should not be confused with facts. There are no cases where a link between occasional exposure to chrysotile and mesotheliomas have been shown. There is a pretty standard dose/risk relationship at high (industrial) exposure levels and the mesothelioma rate increases both with severity and length (in years) of exposure.
From the document you referenced:-
"It has been estimated that the annual incidence of developing a mesothelioma in persons with no history of asbestos exposure is about
1 per million. In the majority of cases there is good evidence of exposure to asbestos and the risk is proportional to the duration of exposure. The incidence is highest in those who have worked directly with asbestos. However, the degree of exposure necessary to cause mesothelioma is considerably less than that associated with asbestosis and lung cancer, and it may be a risk for people who may have had regular contact through washing workers dust-laden clothes, or those who have lived close to asbestos factories in the past."
The epidemic, much to the chagrin of compensation lawyers who have found it a nice little earner, is declining faster than expected. The total number of mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain is now predicted to peak somewhere between 1,950 and 2,450 annually between the years 2011 and 2015 although 2004 data may lower this estimation.
Of those deaths the vast majority are people who were past shipyard workers, involved in railway carriage and locomotive building or in the construction industry.
As one American lawyer remarked "Asbestos litigation has become a malignant enterprise which mostly consists of a massive client-recruitment effort that accounts for as much as 90 percent of all claims currently being generated, supported by baseless medical evidence which is not generated by good-faith medical practice, but rather is primarily a function of the compensation paid, and by claimant testimony scripted by lawyers...".
formatting link
is also worth looking at. Possibly the UK compensation industry is marginally more honest.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.