Latest Keoghs Insight

Costs budget exaggeration is misconduct

Client Alerts||17/08/2017

Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government 2017 EWCA Civ 1136

Client Alerts||04/08/2017

Lord Justice Jackson's review into Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)

Client Alerts||01/08/2017

Sentencing guidelines: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea – update

Client Alerts||27/07/2017

Grant v Secretary of State for Transport: Guidance on Mesothelioma quantum

Client Alerts||06/07/2017

Blake v Croasdale & esure [2017] EWHC 1336 (QB)

Client Alerts||06/07/2017

Asymptomatic Silicosis Update: Feeney v Tarmac Sandstone Limited and one other

Client Alerts||26/06/2017

Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd

Client Alerts||23/06/2017

Ex-wife’s tip-off uncovers case of stolen identity leading to award of exemplary damages

News And Events||02/08/2017

Keoghs research warns of large rise in opportunistic insurance fraud

News And Events||17/07/2017

Keoghs launches 2017 apprenticeship programme

News And Events||09/06/2017

Scotland team expands at Keoghs one month after Glasgow office unveiled

News And Events||01/06/2017

Keoghs proud to support Bolton Wanderers Community Trust

News And Events||26/04/2017

Keoghs accelerates growth with move into Scotland

News And Events||19/04/2017

Keoghs sign up to new Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) affiliate membership

News And Events||05/04/2017

Keoghs celebrates award for fledgling apprenticeship scheme

News And Events||10/03/2017

Manslaughter consultation shows intent but lack of clarity

Blogs||11/08/2017

Counting the (wasted) cost of LNC

Blogs||02/08/2017

Credit hire: A strategic approach

Blogs||26/07/2017

Preserving insurers’ recovery rights following escape of water

Blogs||20/07/2017

Who is David Lidington?

Blogs||12/06/2017

Jackson v The Sugababes? Don’t delay… push the button!

Blogs||12/05/2017

Examining a Court of Appeal decision concerning the adequacy of Local Authority systems

Blogs||28/04/2017

Jumping for joy?

Blogs||24/04/2017

Credit Hire Aware 12

AWARE||19/07/2017

Costs Aware Issue 3

AWARE||22/06/2017

Property Aware 5

AWARE||14/06/2017

Credit Hire Aware 11

AWARE||21/12/2016

Fraud Aware 5

AWARE||27/10/2016

Costs Aware 2

AWARE||24/10/2016

Disease Aware 8

AWARE||05/10/2016

Credit Hire Aware 10

AWARE||18/08/2016

Keoghs Insight

We keep you up-to-date on emerging market issues and their impact on the insurance sector, through a variety of publications, events and our leading market initiatives.

Author

Heather Ford

Preserving insurers’ recovery rights following escape of water

Blogs||20/07/2017

According to statistics provided by the ABI, Escape of Water (EOW) costs continue to increase, including a staggering 50% rise in claims costs over three years.  The increase in costs associated with domestic claims is particularly stark - the average claim is now £2,670.  For commercial EOW claims, the first quarter of 2017 was the second most expensive quarter on record, with £70m incurred.

The UK is no stranger to prolonged cold snaps during the winter months. The effect of weather upon domestic service pipes can be devastating, for:

A burst pipe can result in as much as 400 litres of water escaping every hour (equating to two full baths). Even the smallest leak can cause significant damage. With ‘trace and access’ coverage to add to repair bills, costs can soon escalate.

We note that many insurers are reporting ‘spikes’ in escape of water claims. With repair costs spiralling and the opportunities for pursing successful recoveries reducing, the costs burden felt by the insurance industry is a major concern for the future. Escape of Water claims continue to be the most expensive peril for domestic property insurers.

It’s not just cold weather that leads to increasing claim costs. The streamlining of claims processes, by way of home emergency cover and the like, and the implementation of additional consumer legislation, has affected the evidence gathering process. In turn this has led to a decrease in successful recovery actions.

In this blog we examine what practical steps insurers can take to preserve their recovery rights when escapes occur.

Recovery challenges

One word. Evidence.

When escapes occur, customers’ immediate response is usually to call out an emergency plumber. That emergency plumber may be:

That immediate response results in either:

Either way, insurers are usually notified of a claim after the escape has ceased and after the emergency plumber has removed the vital evidence required by insurers to pursue a recovery claim.

What can insurers do?

The success of a claim depends solely on the information / evidence available to support it, so what can insurers do to enhance their prospects of pursuing recovery claims against third parties?

A case in point

Keoghs often receives escape of water recovery claims where causation evidence is thin on the ground. One case in particular revealed that a local plumbing company had recently fitted a basin unit within the customer’s en-suite bathroom. The customer’s evidence suggested that upon investigation, the origin of the water escape was the newly installed basin.

When the leak was discovered, the local plumbing company were reinstructed to attend and stop the escape. Investigations revealed that the plumbing company had removed the basin and associated pipework and replaced it pursuant to the remedy available to the customer under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

We spoke with the customer and explained the importance of retaining the evidence, given the possibility that the local plumbing contractor had caused the initial escape. The customer was so incensed that the local plumbing contractor had essentially attended her property and removed the causation evidence, that she attended the showroom and duly took possession of the original basin and pipework. This allowed us to arrange to have the sanitaryware examined forensically and, along with the physical photos and video evidence of the escape taken by the customer, the expert evidence concluded that the escape and resultant damage occurred due to defective pipework. Without that evidence the claim would have been abandoned.

It has to be appreciated that not every escape of water incident leads to a recovery action but in those cases where a recovery action is possible, much more can be done. Some simple tweaks to claims processes designed to enhance the overall prospects of success, can help in recouping some of the £2.5m insurers pay out each and every day.

For more information please contact:

Heather Ford
Associate
T: 01204 677168
E: hford@keoghs.co.uk