Landlord's £49,000 Claim Success

The Problem

Mrs S owns and manages a number of properties. One night she was called to one of them because a fire had broken out in the next door house. Because the neighbour’s house was so close, Mrs S’s property suffered a small degree damage from the fire, smoke and heat.

The main problem, however, was that when the fire brigade entered her house they found that it had been turned into a cannabis farm! The tenant had modified her property, installing high powered lamps and modifying all available space for the growing of the plants - cutting holes in walls and ceilings to install ducting to vent the heat produced by the lamps. Baths and sinks had been used to mix chemicals, kitchens trashed, soil and chemicals were spilled everywhere, and appliances ripped out. After the discovery, the tenant naturally disappeared.

Worse was to come. Mrs S entered an insurance claim for Malicious Damage, then met with the Loss Adjuster. She soon realised there were problems with the claim. Her insurers said that, whilst they acknowledged the changes to the house caused by the modifications for the purpose of growing the plants, they did not class the modifications as malicious in nature. They were simply the consequence of the tenant growing plants for profit. The damage was simply a cold consequence of the conversion, and not at heart “malicious” - and if it wasn't “malicious”, it wasn't covered. The Insurer would have been happy to just pay for the fire and smoke damage, but not for malicious damage she was claiming.

Help with the Insurance Claim

Mrs S found Truman Associates through a quick search on the internet and saw that they had experience of working with cases like hers.

After reading through the insurance policy and schedule, Truman Associates suggested that as she was covered not only for Malicious Damage but also Vandalism, she could use that to put forward her case. As punching holes in the ceilings would have had to have involved a degree of violence – a necessary component of malicious damage – it was argued that she was covered for the damage to her property.

Results of Our Help

In the light of this, matters were once again referred back to underwriters, who finally accepted the arguments and they agreed to meet the £49,000 claim.

Client Testimonial

"Ray Truman worked doggedly and with passion to fight on my behalf. I couldn’t understand why my insurers, who were supposed to be specialists in insuring Landlords like me, up and down the country, could try and hide behind small print to reject my claim. Thank goodness for Ray and his determination never to give up and for winning the day in the end.".