by Rowan  07/01/2018  259 Page Views
3 Comments  Super, Managed Funds, Wealth, Insurance, SMSF, Pensions

First off apologies if there is already a discussion on this, i tried several time to search but received an error each time.

My question relates to an insurance claim for damages resulting from a burst water pipe.

The facts are:

A water pipe burst in our (double brick) wall behind our shower.

Our house insurance policy covers us for damage cause by burst pipes but i am not covered for "The cost to repair the item from which the water leaked or escaped".

The plumber has repaired the pipe but now there is a hole in the wall where he had to access the pipe and likely a large bill to re-tile the whole bathroom.

Insurance has denied my claim based on the above exclusion and have said there is no resultant damage from the burst pipe.

I have already paid for the repair to the pipe so essentially i believe we are arguing over the cause of the damage to the wall and likely need to re-tile the whole bathroom.

To me the proximate cause of the damage is the burst pipe, but i am wondering if the exclusion above has any impact.

I was hoping someone could let me know if there is a flaw in my logic/argument. I have been searching for some information before i go to the Ombudsman and have found a lot of information on proximate cause, but given my lack of expertise in this field i could be off base.

Thankyou in advance.