3 Comments Super, Managed Funds, Wealth, Insurance, SMSF, Pensions
If the policy states that cover is only for consequential damage and not for the repair of the original fault, I believe you are out of luck.
Re-tiling the bathroom is usually unnecessary, it may take a bit of searching to find the same tiles but usually it can be done. Have a look around the property for discarded surplus tiles from the original job, there usually are some and not everyone throws them out. Failing that go to a reputable tile shop with a sample and see what they say. When I had such a problem years ago, the tile shop knew the make and style of the tile but didn't have any, but by email found a box at another of their companies outlets and had it sent, only cost me the cost of the box and some freight. The job was small so I did the tiling myself.
I have some tiles as we only did the bathroom 5 years ago, but because the waterproof membrane will need to be replaced pretty much the whole bathroom needs to be redone (this is what the insurance assessor said too).
I am covered for consequential damages, but I am responsible for "repairing the item from which the water escaped". I would argue the "item" is the pipe which I have repaired but the damage to the wall is a direct result of the water leak and therefore should be covered.
I am just trying to determine if the exclusion impacts on the proximate cause being the leak.