1) Kitchen fitter fits kitchen and is called back to fix a couple of minor snags, which is a common occurance in the Building Trade. Whilst doing the snagging he damaged the very expensive granite work top he originally fitted. A claim was put into MMA and was refused as "They cover him whilst he is performing the contract and in their view once he has fitted the kitchen the contract is completed. By going back for snagging he was working outside the "Contract" and was not covered.
We took the complaint to executive level and it was still refused.
Blimey. Are you sure? Why the hell are you taking this to executive level ROFL. This is a) in the Key Facts document & policy wording and, more importantly, b) common sense otherwise going against the principles of public liability.
The Company exclude the cost of rectifying defective workmanship; repairing or replacing faulty goods supplied or works carried out. As per their wording. Other companies have similar underwriting (ie. 'claims for damage to the completed work or to the work materials', 'the cost of recalling repairing or replacing materials or goods sold or supplied or of rectifying defective workmanship' etc).
As we all know, Public Liability does not cover the item worked upon. If your above example could be claimed for then it would be open to abuse. A kitchen fitter fitting a £2,000 granite/marble made to measure designer work surface fits the item and, in doing so, takes a chunk out of it then puts in a claim. Damage caused to item worked upon and therefore not covered. This Insured could go away, come back to fix some 'snagging' (or making good of something which should have been sound in the first place) then try to claim for damage which occured prior - again, item being worked upon.
I certainly wouldn't uphold this claim either and I can't see any Insurer honouring it unless the claims handler is equally as defective !
2) Builder was putting building debris into a skip on the properties drive on a very windy day, he put a large piece of flat metal onto the top of the skip and the wind blew it onto the next door neighboors car causing damage well over £1500. Claim put in and was refused on basis of "Act of God" (Which amused me) and also that he was not legally liable (Although he had not taken all reasonable steps to avoid the damage. Again taken to executive level and refused, to make it worse for the tradesmen as well as paying the damage out of his own pocket the neighboor just happened to be the building inspector on a neighbooring council who the builder has dealings with, so this did not go down very well.
Very basic description there and one I would scrutinise. You say he put a 'large piece of flat metal onto the top of the skip'. What was this large piece of flat metal used for? Where had it come from?
Yes the Insured has not complied with a condition applicable - 5. Reasonable Precautions. Page 9 or 10 in the policy wording I believe. It states 'The Insured shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid bodily injury or loss of or damage to property'.
The point to remember here is that a builder should build, a tree feller should fell trees, a baker should bake and a debris removal contractor should remove debris. Any other additional works should be notified and agreed by the Underwriter. As I said, the scenario above is limited in facts.
Facts of that matter are a) the Insured put a FLAT piece of metal onto the TOP of a skip on a 'VERY WINDY day' b) the Insured is not acting as a builder whilst disposing of waste removed from the property.
To a degree I do see your point here on this one more-so than Scenario A. However I can't help but think with both scenarios whichever broker has instructed cover held has been negligent in seeking cover for which meets the demands and needs of the Insured either by insufficient fact finding or lack of product knowledge. It's important to explore, elect and advise on the possibilties of other covers which may 'plug the holes' where Public Liability may be insufficient or where that product may not be suitable.
Its not just me who is not keen on them have a read of this survey
http://www.instimes.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=376295
..and I don't disagree. I'd say their rating is fairly 'fair' but then these are 'per-broker' opinions. I would agree with AXA being at 44% but then I wouldn't agree with QBE at 72%. I would also expect Norwich Union to be on-par with AXA. I had this survey and my answers will be different to others. It depends on frequency used and experiences based on this fact.
In my view MMA have to offer the cheapest prices as most brokers will avoid using them unless the client is soley concerned about price and accepts they run the chance they may have problems if they have a claim
I can think of many cheaper and I somewhat disagree, there are many that I would consider worse! MMA settle many claims every day and there is no wrong in a thorough investigation where warranted so 'speed' (as in the survey above) could be confused by disgruntled brokers who do not understand that without investigation leaves the goal posts wide apart - in the same way that people comparing prices on this site and reviewing the company may get confused with 'Value for Money' meaning 'Cheap' which indeed it doesn't. With 'speed' though there has to be a happy medium. AXA and NU (Aviva) are just plain ridiculous especially considering they're not cheap either!
Coyote