'Insurance won't pay unless I do £3000 damage to my floor'

To receive a payout, Martin and Jean Unwin needed an ‘identifiable event’ to blame for the gas leak Photo: Andrew Crowley

When Martin and Jean Unwin smelt gas coming from their utility room, they

immediately called the National Gas Emergency Service, which quickly sent an

engineer to cut off the gas supply.

Fortunately the leak in their four-bedroom detached home in Berkshire last

July was relatively small and the Unwins were unharmed.

Others haven’t been so lucky. According to the Gas Safe Register, there have

been 31 fatalities caused by gas leaks during the past three years.

Mr and Mrs Unwin were told the reason for their leak could not be determined,

but it was likely to be due to the gas pipes under their stone flooring. A

few days later, they had the gas supply re–routed outside at a cost of

£1,200.

After the work had been completed, Mr Unwin, 65, a marketing consultant,

contacted his buildings and content insurer, Zurich, to claim for the work.

Much to his surprise, Zurich said it would not pay until it knew that an

“identifiable event” had caused the leak. But this was impossible for Mr

Unwin to check without digging up the solid floor.

Apart from that, with the house only 17 years old, Mr Unwin said the leak was

unlikely to be the result of “wear and tear”, although the engineer who

re-routed the gas said the hemp used in the joints might have dried up or a

joint might have weakened, causing the gas to leak.

Under Zurich’s policy, the Unwins were not covered in the case of a gas leak,

but if they could prove it was caused by an identifiable cause they could be

covered by the “extended accidental damage” cover on the policy.

With the gas pipes under the floor, it would cost “thousands of pounds” to

expose them, according to the couple’s engineer, a cost Zurich would not

reimburse if the cause did turn out to be wear and tear.

A Zurich spokesman told Telegraph Money: “Mr Unwin’s policy does not cover gas

leaks or works needed to resolve them. Therefore we correctly declined the

claim.”

Zurich did pay £75 to say sorry for poor service when failing to return calls.

Graeme Trudgill, executive director of the British Insurance Brokers’

Association, said that as the engineer suggested the cause of the leak was

that the hemp had dried up, this would classify as wear and tear and not

accidental damage.

“If Mr Unwin wanted to pursue the claim he would have to initially pay to have

the floor dug up and seek an expert opinion on the cause of the leak,” Mr

Trudgill said.

“If the expert opinion is that an ‘accident’ had occurred damaging the pipe,

then a claim, with supporting evidence, should be pursued.

“But if the supply has been re–routed permanently, and all is safe and there

are no obvious signs of accidental damage, I think the customer could

consider cutting his losses and avoid having the cost and inconvenience of

having his floor dug up.”

Mr Unwin could go to the financial ombudsman if he was unhappy with this

outcome, but “in this instance it appears that the claim has been dealt with

correctly”.

• sophie.christie@telegraph.co.uk

Source

'Insurance won't pay unless I do £3000 damage to my floor'