The issue of wear and tear is a hugely important one in home insurance terms, because it can affect both the buildings and contents insurance, and is a source of much grief for policyholders when it comes to making a claim under the policy.
In terms of the building or structural insurance of the house or dwelling, what is regarded as normal wear and tear is not normally covered under a home insurance policy.
This means in effect there is a responsibility on the owner of the structure of the building to maintain it in a reasonable manner to deal with any issues that might otherwise be deemed wear and tear.
This also means that an insurance company will not pay a claim where the cause of the claim is what might be considered down to normal maintenance issues on a house or dwelling.
For example, if a house has guttering that is blocked and has not be cleared, then it is quite likely that there may be rain water damage to the property itself or the inside of the property.
In general an insurance company would look at the reasons for the water damage, and would see that the reason for it was a lack of maintenance that would be considered normal for the property.
As such they would be likely to decline the claim.
In addition, it is quite common for insurance companies to either have a specific warranty or an implicit warranty in the policy itself that demands the policyholder be responsible for maintaining the property in a proper manner.
Whilst this is quite difficult to define legally, it does give the insurance company an opt out on paying claims such as the example above.
The other issue concerning wear and tear refers to contents or possessions, and is quite often a real source of tension for policyholders when there is a claim against household items such as clothing or furniture or bedding.
Traditionally, insurance companies when assessing a valid claim against items such as clothing, bedding etc would apply a percentage figure to that claim, to make a reduction for what they deemed wear and tear.
The policyholder, would have assumed that any claim would pay a full replacement cost, not a cost that allowed for wear and tear reduction.
The issue of wear and tear reduction relates to a basic insurance principle that a policyholder not make a profit out of any claim that they make under a policy.
The reduction for wear and tear on any item was in part to allow for this principle, as well as being a way that insurance companies could reduce their costs.
In recent times, this has changed quite considerably and insurance companies now usually a offer standard replacement cost sometimes known as actual cost value or replacement cost option.
This means that if there is a valid claim under a contents insurance policy in relation to items that reduce over time in value due to wear and tear, that the sum the insurance company will pay will be by way of replacement value.
The insurance company does have the option of either replacing these items by way of cash, or by way of literally replacing the item itself.
This again has become more common in recent years, where they can replace electrical items and garden items with similar products.
In terms of the building or structural insurance of the house or dwelling, what is regarded as normal wear and tear is not normally covered under a home insurance policy.
This means in effect there is a responsibility on the owner of the structure of the building to maintain it in a reasonable manner to deal with any issues that might otherwise be deemed wear and tear.
This also means that an insurance company will not pay a claim where the cause of the claim is what might be considered down to normal maintenance issues on a house or dwelling.
For example, if a house has guttering that is blocked and has not be cleared, then it is quite likely that there may be rain water damage to the property itself or the inside of the property.
In general an insurance company would look at the reasons for the water damage, and would see that the reason for it was a lack of maintenance that would be considered normal for the property.
As such they would be likely to decline the claim.
In addition, it is quite common for insurance companies to either have a specific warranty or an implicit warranty in the policy itself that demands the policyholder be responsible for maintaining the property in a proper manner.
Whilst this is quite difficult to define legally, it does give the insurance company an opt out on paying claims such as the example above.
The other issue concerning wear and tear refers to contents or possessions, and is quite often a real source of tension for policyholders when there is a claim against household items such as clothing or furniture or bedding.
Traditionally, insurance companies when assessing a valid claim against items such as clothing, bedding etc would apply a percentage figure to that claim, to make a reduction for what they deemed wear and tear.
The policyholder, would have assumed that any claim would pay a full replacement cost, not a cost that allowed for wear and tear reduction.
The issue of wear and tear reduction relates to a basic insurance principle that a policyholder not make a profit out of any claim that they make under a policy.
The reduction for wear and tear on any item was in part to allow for this principle, as well as being a way that insurance companies could reduce their costs.
In recent times, this has changed quite considerably and insurance companies now usually a offer standard replacement cost sometimes known as actual cost value or replacement cost option.
This means that if there is a valid claim under a contents insurance policy in relation to items that reduce over time in value due to wear and tear, that the sum the insurance company will pay will be by way of replacement value.
The insurance company does have the option of either replacing these items by way of cash, or by way of literally replacing the item itself.
This again has become more common in recent years, where they can replace electrical items and garden items with similar products.
SHARE
