Member Comments

We have our house/contents with Monument via Crombie Lockwood.

Since 2009, we have not moved house, but have replaced carpet and added roof insulation. We live in Auckland.

In that time, our premiums have gone

1070
1150
1500
1900

That's 60% in 2 years.

I feel that this is excessive, but Im not sure what others have experienced in that time

I have used a broker since we bought our first house 14 years ago. My question is: Am I getting a better deal using a broker or am I simply incurring more costs by having him add his fees too?

Further to a claim due to an electrical surge on the network, AA insurance has revised our policy and decided they will not renew it when it expires as they "lack experience" in settling claims for our home " due to its unique construction and design ( we live in a rotating dome )
Is it legal ? can they refuse to insure us on the basis that we are different ?
your comments or experiences are welcome.

Again, we are with AMI. We have Premium House and contents cover on the house we are currently living in and rental property insurance for our rental property.
Three weeks ago we were informed by tenant that there was a leak in a corner of the shower, that the skirting board was damp and showing mould. We investigated straight away with a plumber on site. Found where the leak was, then the tenant pointed out to us, that in the bedroom next door, they had found two days before our visit, that the carpet was wet and mouldy in the corner that backed onto the bathroom. Skirting was very wet and moulded also. This according to the plumber had been going on for some time, there must be another leak somewhere else in shower. The option to find this leak was: a: remove entire shower to see what was going on or b: remove lower part of wall in bedroom next door, see how bad it was etc. We chose the 'b' option. Note that this bathroom had been entirely renovated 5yrs ago. Turns out the water was 'seeping' through between shower wall and base, sealant must have just worn away on outside. There was no way we would have known this said the plumber until it showed itself - which it did. Possibly weeks after, maybe even more. I called into my insurance agents office, told them what had happened, and we were straight away informed that 'seepage' was not covered, UNLESS it was through the fault of a leaking/burst pipe or waste disposal. SEEPAGE apparently comes under MAINTAINENCE and therefore they would not pay out. So, we have the lower half of the bedroom wall which is damp, to replace,( as well as paint/wallpapering) the carpet to be cleaned and sanitised and now it seems it needs replacing as pile is shot due to it being so wet for such a long period of time! Shower will need to be removed, possibly replaced, so that the whole thing can be resealed properly on the outside ( you do not seal a shower on the inside according to plumber) And unless the plumber and the insurance assessor can pin the leak/seepage on a faulty pipe or waste disposal, none of it is covered by insurance!
My question, how can I see a leaking pipe that is under the floor or in the walls anymore than I can see sealant that has deteriorated between a wall, floor and shower base?! It seems totally unfair that you pay premiums etc thinking that this sort of thing will be covered only to find it is not. There is just no way we could have known what was going on until it showed itself as it did.
By the way, the room concerned above is a spare room and there fore not used as often by the tenants unless they have guests staying. This is why the damage was not noticed as quickly.
I really feel that insurance companys need to look at the seepage/leak issue and define certain things. I can understand had this been water seeping into or under a house from the outside and the owner being aware of it but taking no action to remedy it. But the above cause - its simply unfair! So far the cost of repair etc is over $5000.
Has anyone else had this problem or similar? Is it fair that an unseen event takes place and is defined as 'maintainence' when clearly if you cant see it or are not aware of it, you cant fix it!
All insurance companys seem to take this stand, read your policys carefully. We honestly thought we would be ok and that it would be covered. It is an unforseen event after all.

We lost 2 cars due to flood damage.
insurance company phone us and gave the amount they would pay out for our claim.which we agreed would be okay.However we have just received a call from insurer to say we will only be paying $3000.Are verbal agreements law?thanks

Hi, In March I requested that you include a 'single' home owners category. You have three categories for couples and nothing for singles. I noticed that in April you updated this section however, no new changes were made. As I recall, I made the same request a few years ago when I was a subscriber. I would appreciate it if Consumer would act on some of the suggestions because a large section of the population are missing out. It is very frustrating when you sign up to Consumer for something specific like this insurance comparison section to find that you don't find the category! Thanks.

You give the useful reminder that you might need to take out contracts works insurance if you are having building work done, or alternatively get it covered under your main policy. I strongly suggest the latter - if there is a catastrophic event where insurers stop writing cover, you will find, that your main insurer will not take on the additional new risk. If the building work is finished in the meantime you are stuck without cover.

The same issue arises when building a new home - ours was finished in October 2010 - and no one would cover us for earthquake risk without a standdown, our builders policy having been completed. Not a happy situation thinking your life savings are at risk if there was another earthquake....

Shame you did not include the prices. For the retired couple they all rated the same. Now I have to to contact them all for quotes.