FOS: complaints involving damage to underground pipes
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has updated its website to include a page with guidance for businesses on complaints relating to damage to underground pipes.
It is common for building insurance policies to cover damage to underground pipes, drains, cable and tanks, normally limited to pipes the policyholder is legally responsible for.
The webpage sets out the types of complaints that it usually sees relating to damaged pipes. Amongst these are where there is disagreement as to the damage to the pipe and the cause of the damage (e.g. was it accidental? Was it wear and tear?) or where there is a policy exclusion in place.
FOS explains the key things insurers should do in handling these types of complaints, including what the drainage report needs to show, arranging repairs, what to do if the customer fixed the pipe before you inspect it, assessment of quantum, when there is a policy exclusion and when there are property boundary issues.
The most common exclusions that FOS sees are:
- Gradual damage
- Wear and tear
- Poor design, construction and workmanship.
They state that they need a drainage report to be able to make their decision and it will be the insurers’ responsibility to show that the damage was most likely caused in one of these ways and that accordingly the exclusion applies.
Contents
- Perils: Property insurance claims newsletter - October 2023
- Insurance considerations following use of RAAC concrete
- Underlying contracts remain key in arguments over scope of co-insurance
- Recklessness not ‘accidental’ when it comes to trespass
- Property damage oil spills, reliance and duties of delivery drivers
- The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
- Incorrectly named insured policy dispute - was the broker or insurer liable?
- Australian Court of Appeal considers welding exclusion
- Contractors' liability and contract works exclusion
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Flooded with doubt: Court assesses fraud allegations in Malhotra Leisure
Legal Update
Representations, warranties and conditions precedent: Lonham Group v Scotbeef
Legal Update
Martyn’s Law: When remembrance meets the market
Legal Update
Covid-19 BI claims update: Are furlough payments a BI loss?
Legal Update
When frozen pipes crack legal certainty: Land Energy Girvan v Aspen Insurance
Legal Update
Another look at the meaning 'property damage': Capral Ltd v Insurance Australia
Legal Update
Perils: Property insurance claims newsletter, Summer 2025
Legal Update
How accurate are your IPIDs?
Legal Update
The LA fires: Counting the insurance cost
Legal Update
North Carolina Supreme Court COVID-19 decision in North State Deli v Cincinnati Insurance Co
Legal Update
Weather protection parametric insurance: A sign of things to come?
Legal Update
Smooth sailing ahead: The LMA's new Open Form Default Clause
Legal Update
Oklahoma earthquake: Racial discrimination in adjudication
Legal Update
Words matter: Another case on the importance of accurate drafting
Legal Update
Parametric flood policies - Insurers no longer in uncharted waters?
Legal Update
Insurance and the escalating situation in Suez Canal
Legal Update
Energy insurance: Technip Saudi Arabia Limited v The Mediterranean and Gulf Cooperative Insurance and Reinsurance Company ('Medgulf')
Published Article
Deal over jets stranded in Russia may serve as blueprint
Legal Update
The Luton Airport car park fire – implications for insurers
Legal Update
Australian Court of Appeal considers welding exclusion
Legal Update
Contractors' liability and contract works exclusion
Legal Update
FOS: complaints involving damage to underground pipes
Legal Update
Incorrectly named insured policy dispute - was the broker or insurer liable?
Legal Update
Property damage oil spills, reliance and duties of delivery drivers
Legal Update
Recklessness not ‘accidental’ when it comes to trespass
Legal Update
Underlying contracts remain key in arguments over scope of co-insurance
Legal Update
Insurance considerations following use of RAAC concrete
Legal Update
Perils: Property insurance claims newsletter - October 2023
Legal Update
Extreme weather leading to a rise in property claims
Legal Update
The recent judgment in MacPhail v Allianz Insurance Plc
Legal Update - RAAC
Insurance considerations of RAAC failures - air bubbles belong in chocolate, not concrete!
Legal Update - RAAC
The RAAC crisis: Is it really back-to-school this September?
Legal Update
A ‘slick’ result for Shell: the Supreme Court considers limitation in Jalla v Shell
Legal Update
Parties are in hot water over hot works dispute: proceedings issued in Britannia Hotels (No.2) v Aviva Insurance Limited
Legal Update
The perfect financial storm: top 5 trends making a mischief with BI adjustments
Legal Update
COVID-19 BI Claims rumble on
Legal Update
The risk of encroachment is not a nuisance: Davies v Bridgend County Council
Legal Update
Visual intrusion is oppressive: Fearn v Tate Gallery
Legal Update
Proximate cause focus: Brian Leighton Garages v Allianz and Allianz v University of Exeter
