Insurance claim and unneccessary work

For such a small flood I'm surprised that you bothered to claim, as flooding from external sources is classed with similar distain as subsidence within the insurance industry. Thus you'll find it hard to get insurance for the years to come / you'll have to declare this when you sell the house = you've knocked '000s from the value of your house.

So in answer you your question - get as much as you are allowed, as a claim is a claim irrespective how much it is

Jon

I can't see the insurance company complaining if you ask if it can be left for a month or two to dry out first, as that may remove the need for much of the work and cost.

In message , PeterK writes

It very much depends on the nature of the flooding. It sounds as if it was just excess surface rainwater coming in - in which case, yes it does sound excessive.

For flooding where you have standing water, then the water can be contaminated (sewage and chemicals etc). In this case, the builder is doing the right thing to strip out/back as much as possible. In 'proper' (is that the way to describe it?) flooding, *anything* in contact with the water is usually disposed of, removed, stripped out etc.

Hth Someone

Get a second opinion. In the end, no-one can force you to have the work done.

Or accept a cash settlement.

NT