Work Away Clause - Off Site Premises

[sttony]

Was wondering if anyone has ever come across one of these clauses in a company insurance policy.

The scenario. Company (liquidation and zero assets) has a business to install solar panels and cavity wall a members of the public properties. Insurance schedule says this. Company have paid £350,000 for combined legal cover. Once company goes bust, people find out that the company incorrectly installed cavity wall/ solar panels etc causing £20,000 plus of damages. Insurance company wave a piece of paper and say - 'Sorry, we do not cover this company for negligence, poor workmanship, product liability or in fact anything that has caused damage OFF SITE. Damage includes improving and altering.

Not a bad earner for an insurance company.

[des8]

Hi and welcome

"combined legal cover"..... a bit indefinite of what cobver the company actually held
"members of the public properties"..... what is that?.


If the company only chose to have cover for their own premises and did not include Professional Indemnity within their Combined Business Insurance, it is quite a normal exclusion clause.
In any event even if the company held a professional indemnity insurance, only the company or, as it is in liquidation (?insolvency) the official receiver or the liquidator could make a claim against the insurers. Your claim has to be against the company or liquidator, unless you are going to rely on third parties rights against insurers act 2010


Unfair to blame the insurance company if an insured chooses not to insure every eventuality

Have you seen a copy of the policy?
Could you post it up?

[sttony]

Thanks for looking Des8. Section 3.4. Fantastic reading and a cure for insomnia/ Have a little peek, and hopefully the attachment opens.

[des8]

So that was a liability policy and would not cover design or construction faults.

You need to see if the company had a Professional Indemnity policy or a Contractors All Risks policy or both (depending on exactly what the problems are).
PI covers design faults, faulty advice etc
CAR covers generally flood, wind, earthquakes, water damage and mold, construction faults and negligence. Does not cover normal wear and tear, willful negligence or poor workmanship.
However any policy will (should) be tailored to a particular company and different exclusions will apply.

Was it the design that was poor eg the house(s) was (were) unsuitable for cavity insulation? (PI) or it was poorly installed ?(possibly CAR)

[sttony]

So that was a liability policy and would not cover design or construction faults.

You need to see if the company had a Professional Indemnity policy or a Contractors All Risks policy or both (depending on exactly what the problems are).
PI covers design faults, faulty advice etc
CAR covers generally flood, wind, earthquakes, water damage and mold, construction faults and negligence. Does not cover normal wear and tear, willful negligence or poor workmanship.
However any policy will (should) be tailored to a particular company and different exclusions will apply.

Was it the design that was poor eg the house(s) was (were) unsuitable for cavity insulation? (PI) or it was poorly installed ?(possibly CAR)

Hi Des,

Thanks for that.

Cavity Wall (CWI) background in a nutshell................

Utility companies advised by the government they had an obligation to ensure households were energy efficient. Up pops the cavity walls business. You name the company, they popped up all over the place.

Canvassing takes place, 'we offer free CWI on the Green Deal Scheme ' CWI is installed, companies invariably go out of business, home owners house then starts to fall apart. The word free appealed to around 6.5 MILLION households.

OFGEM have a poor list which is supposed to say who made the payment to the builder. IN virtually all cases, they do not have information.

INSTAGROUP who facilitate the payment, have lost all records (No joke) unable to say who may payment.

TBH - it is absolutely shocking. It is almost trying to get the truth out of small children. Not me, no idea what you are on about etc.

Thanks for that info though.

[des8]

Thanks for the info.
IMO it is most unlikely that a fund sucking company would invest in an insurance policy that would most likely only be called upon at a time by which said company would be wound up.

I suppose you've seen this site: https://www.gov.uk/complain-green-deal

[sttony]

We are conducting an almost police type investigation into this top trace the origin. Somebody somewhere paid an installer money to put this wonder CWI in. We try not to devout too many hours on these cases, but give them a weekly investigation; try another avenue to be hit with a brick wall, and we try again. Merci for the link. We tried this before - trust me it really is - 'try this, try that, and then you end up where you first started ; namely, who is the paymaser and what excuse to avoid liability is it this time.