Have You Had A Septic Tank Claim Turned Down?

Septic Tank

22 February 2019

Most people don’t even realise that, often, the costs of resolving septic tank problems or soakaway problems are covered by standard buildings insurance policies.  Some people will go searching for a specific septic tank insurance policy – but no such thing really exists, because typically cover is already provided by buildings policies.

So, that’s the good news. The not so good news is that insurers aren’t always great at dealing with claims for damaged septic tanks. So, what are the main reasons why insurers turn down septic tank insurance claims? And what should you do if it happens to you?

There are many reasons why insurers decline septic tank insurance claims – although, they’re often not right to do so, and we’ve laid out the top 5 reasons below:

They don’t understand septic tanks

Ok, so the concept of a septic tank seems pretty straightforward.  But actually, how they work and more importantly why they STOP working can get pretty technical. Least of which because they are underground so no one can see what’s gone on. Some insurers simply don’t understand how it all works, and valid claims can get turned down because of this.

They rely on their own professionals

Each insurer appoints a company to assess the claim for them. Sometimes this might be a loss adjuster, other times it might be one of a number of drainage companies set up to work for insurers. The problem is that septic tanks are just a small proportion of what these companies do, and – dare we say it – some are more inclined to recommend that claims be turned down more than others, which is why it’s always worth considering seeking a second opinion.

They can rely too much on opinion

We see a number of claims being turned down based on the opinion of these specialists, and the insurer will often support the decision in default, until the Ombudsman tells them that they are wrong. For example, one specialist used by insurers will say that any septic tank beyond a certain age has failed because it’s too old. The problem is that it’s just their opinion, and it’s not supported by manufacturers or any industry bodies.

They get hung up on the ’cause’ of the damage

There are two problems with finding the cause of the damage. Firstly, it’s very difficult to prove what has happened to a drainage system which is underground, and most people don’t have plans to set up camp in their septic tank, just in case some damage should occur.

But secondly and most importantly, for a claim to be valid, you don’t have to prove what’s CAUSED the damage (unless you have a really tricky policy). All you have to prove is that what’s happened to your septic tank or soakaway meets with the definition of `accidental damage’ set down in your policy.

They forget that they need to prove that an exclusion applies

If a customer has demonstrated that their claim meets with the policy definition, the insurer must PROVE that an exclusion within the policy applies if it wants to turn it down. It’s not enough just to provide an opinion, only evidence will suffice. So, for example, if an insurer wants to use the argument that the septic tank is just too old, they have to prove that it is the age of the tank that has caused the system to fail.

Sounds daunting?

It can be. Luckily you are already in the right place for help, we can provide a lot more information and advice on Septic Tank Insurance Claims and refer you to an appropriate specialist through our network of contractors if required. Contact us today with an online enquiry.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Autistic cinema manager wins €12k over discrimination in roster row

An autistic cinema manager who quit when his employer was unable to guarantee him two days off in a row following a months-long dispute over rostering arrangements has secured €12,000 in compensation for disability discrimination. The complainant's wife gave evidence...

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...