Rebuild prices.

[Bogart]

Where do insurance companies get rebuild prices from? I am asking as my current rebuild price is quoted at £1.25m. For a house valued at £850k to £900k
Now I know there is no direct correlation between the two. Have been offered a full RCIS report to get an up to date one for £200 by my current insurers.
Might just go for it to see what figure they come up with and how it is arrived at.

 

[Bogart]

Oh and another thing that appeared in this years list of needs to be insured is no fires within 100m of any thatch on the property. I can do that but at a damned great inconvenience.
Is this just another wriggle out or do they really not want to insure it all?

 

[stuart45]

Rebuild prices come from the BCIS calculator. There's a free one online that does a basic one and makes a load of assumptions. There's a more complex one that's used by surveyors that you need to pay for that needs a lot more info about the property such as all the perimeter walls, drains, manholes, tarmac etc.
I've just been asked to do one for the first time by my insurance company. Even a desktop one isn't that cheap for a 10 minute job. I did my own last year, as I had access to the proper BCIS calculator.
The calculator probably allows for an uninsured plane to totally destroy all you house, perimeter walls, outbuildings etc.

 

[Kearn]

Rebuildcostassessment.com is the go to. £180 a couple of years back. They’re liable for any shortfall of the worse happened and the number was too low.

Insurance companies do not get rebuild valuations. not do surveyors.

 

[Cubist]

Where do insurance companies get rebuild prices from?

Blessed if I know. Every renewal notice I've received here has included a Rebuild Cost figure usually met with a blank stare followed by a cry of disbelief and puzzlement. The thing to keep in mind though is that they make you responsible for providing the final figure BUT in the event of a claim the number they came up with MAY be used as the basis of determining whether the property is OVER or UNDER insured and therefore used to adjust the final payout valuation. They will of course want to send in a Loss Adjuster should the worst happen but that individual is not necessarily bound by the original figures, other than the one you confirmed but will make, if they're honest, their own assessment of the likely costs for all aspects of the necessary work. At the end of the day it will come down to the professional/personal opinion of the LA and the insurer BUT they will always be biased toward the insurer.

Oh and another thing that appeared in this years list of needs to be insured is no fires within 100m of any thatch on the property. I can do that but at a damned great inconvenience.
Is this just another wriggle out or do they really not want to insure it all?

This is common and has been for quite some time now in my experience.We are fortunate insofar that this old place came with a parcel of land large enough for us to comply with the requirement BUT getting neighbours to cooperate can be problematic. Very recently a new neighbour of ours set a bonfire circa 50 metres from our house and did not welcome my informing them that my insurer would be suing them for £1M Rebuild Cost should the worst happen nor were they best pleased when I suggested they/I call the fire-brigade!

 

[phillc]

Blessed if I know. Every renewal notice I've received here has included a Rebuild Cost figure usually met with a blank stare followed by a cry of disbelief and puzzlement. The thing to keep in mind though is that they make you responsible for providing the final figure BUT in the event of a claim the number they came up with MAY be used as the basis of determining whether the property is OVER or UNDER insured and therefore used to adjust the final payout valuation. They will of course want to send in a Loss Adjuster should the worst happen but that individual is not necessarily bound by the original figures, other than the one you confirmed but will make, if they're honest, their own assessment of the likely costs for all aspects of the necessary work. At the end of the day it will come down to the professional/personal opinion of the LA and the insurer BUT they will always be biased toward the insurer.

This is common and has been for quite some time now in my experience.We are fortunate insofar that this old place came with a parcel of land large enough for us to comply with the requirement BUT getting neighbours to cooperate can be problematic. Very recently a new neighbour of ours set a bonfire circa 50 metres from our house and did not welcome my informing them that my insurer would be suing them for £1M Rebuild Cost should the worst happen nor were they best pleased when I suggested they/I call the fire-brigade!

Why would your insurance company be able to sue your neighbour?

So long as your neighbour has complied with any local regulations on when and where they may be able to set a bonfire, they are in no way beholden to your insurer's arbitrary rules. They have no relationship with them whatsoever.

You signed a contract with your insurer that stipulated a 100 metre perimeter zone, not them. So, if you don't uphold that condition, you are in some from of breach of contract and they don't pay out or revoke your insurance. Simple.

Bugger all to do with your neighbour what you sign up to.

 

[Flyfisher]

Rebuildcostassessment.com is the go to. £180 a couple of years back. They’re liable for any shortfall of the worse happened and the number was too low.

They may well be liable if it turns out they've valued the rebuild costs too low, which raises two issues in my mind. Firstly, what would be the likelihood of a successful claim against them if necessary. Secondly, this liability would most likely drive them towards a very high rebuild cost to cover themselves, with the inevitably high insurance premiums not being their problem!

Tell you what, I'll do you a rebuild valuation for £150 and I'll agree to pay any shortfall arising from a future claim (thinks . . . should I start at a valuation of £3m or would £5m be safer . . . for me of course!).

 

[Cubist]

Gents, I suspect that you're overlooking the civil liability elements of most domestic home insurance policies and also that if damage to a neighbours property results directly from their actions, having previously been advised of the risk, then they are liable for damages claims in the civl courts pursued through the insurers legal or other coverage.

 

[phillc]

Gents, I suspect that you're overlooking the civil liability elements of most domestic home insurance policies and also that if damage to a neighbours property results directly from their actions, having previously been advised of the risk, then they are liable for damages claims in the civl courts pursued through the insurers legal or other coverage.

Indeed, but "risk" in this context doesn't equate to "my insurer doesn't like what you are doing".

I can advise you, as my neighbour, that my insurer requires you to park your car 10 metres from my boundary to avoid the risk you might knock over my fence.

I can equally advise you that I think it should be 15metres, my mum 12 and Donald Trump insists on a set number of feet.

All irrelevant. Within the bounds of any restriction in law or on your property, you can park on your property where you like.

If you do knock over my fence, there may well be a claim on your insurance or I may be able to take you to court. And, yes, those cases are more likely to be successful if it can be shown you were knowingly negligent.

But, negligence is not "failing to comply with your neighbour's insurer's rules". Negligence is driving drunk, using undue speed, maybe parking within 10 metres if there is a particular danger there ... whatever.

It may also be the case that my insurer offers legal support to me to pursue the claim as part of the contract I have paid for with them.

But, there is no method by which my insurer simply can sue someone else for not obeying their Ts & Cs.

Look at it this way. If my insurer specified an unreasonable condition - say "your neighbour must be aged 57 and called Gordon" (protected characteristics aside) and I told you that, and advised you of that, on what basis would my insurer "suing you" be successful?

 

[phillc]

On reflection, there was a simpler analogy/question available to me:

Let's assume person A and person B both have an insurance policy that requires bonfires are lit no closer than 100 metres away. That takes them both onto their neighbour's property. A and B both tell their neighbour of their insurer's preference and take a verifiable record of having done so.

Neighbour A decides to have a bonfire. They are a signatory to the Garden Fires Best Practice Association and follow its rules to the letter. This includes ensuring the fire is attended at all times, all nearby flammable material is removed, they wait for the wind to be blowing away from other buildings, consult the local fire service and act on all their recommendations, etc. Adhering to all these things, they place their bonfire 80 metres from A's house. A random stray spark flutters in an unexpected gust of wind onto A's roof and burns his house down.

Neighbour B decides to have a bonfire. Mindful of B's insurer's preference, they place the bonfire 110 metres from B's house. They don't bother clearing the line of combustible material between the bonfire and B's house, which includes cans of petrol. They wait until the wind is blowing in B's direction and install industrial fans to augment it further and get a good blaze going. Then they bugger off leaving a blazing inferno out of control. The inevitable happens, and B's house burns down.

Where is the most likely pursuable negligence claim and how significant is the insurer's preference for a 100 metre exclusion zone in demonstrating negligence?

 

[Cubist]

Rather than debating your admittedly realistic scenario would you allow me to respond merely by asking a few questions?

1. Why would my insurers ask that I inform my neighbours that bonfires within 100 metres of my home may be problematic?
   1. Please note that the insurer is not overtly making a demand or stating any binding restriction or condition on me or my neighbour. However, the insurer is tacitly transferring the risk in whole or part first to me and then, if I comply, to my neighbour.
2. Why would they not ask that I provide evidence that I have done so?
   1. The insurer is not really interested in such evidence. It is easier and less expensive for the insurer to reject or deny my claim in whole or part than it would be pursue my neighbour through the courts. But that does not mean he won't if he can't lay the blame at my door.
3. Why would my insurers, if faced with a total loss of the Sum Insured for the Building and Contents, and have possession of proof of my neighbours actions and culpability, not pursue a claim against him through the courts?
   1. If the numbers are significant enough and the pursuit costs are reasonable - they will.

 

[phillc]

Hi Cubist,

My guesses:
1. To transfer the risk to you. The liability transfer to the neighbour only becomes possible, as I have written, if there is evidence they are negligent. Negligence may well be "should have had the bonfire further away". Negligence is not "failed to obey a rule set down by your neighbour's insurer to your neighbour".
2. Yes, agree.
3. They potentially would, if those actions were negligent such that there was a likely chance of the case succeeding. Once again, the case won't succeed just because your insurer told you to tell your neighbour where they were and were not to have a bonfire, and they declined to be dictated to by your insurer how they may enjoy their land.

Alternatively, they may choose not to pay out at all as you breached your contract with them and allowed a bonfire to happen within 100 metres. That is, and remains, your problem, not your neighbour's.

Anyway, this has the potential to become a long thread that will end up stuck down a range of rabbit holes, so I think I'll bow out now!

 

[Bogart]

A wise action.