Aig Property Insurance

[Topprofile]

I have used AIG's insurance for 2 of my houses for 2 years and recently I had to make 3 different claims. 2 of them has been finished with DENIED and I am still waiting reponse for the 3rd.

I would like to see if anyone is more educated in the matter and ask for your opinion in these 2 matters. Also, to make things more difficult is the english translation does not match the thai original version and I don't read thai. I understand the the Thai version is the one that will hold up and anyone with the policy from AIG and who can read thai might be able to enlighten me.

The claims:

1. The first claim is regarding a waterleak in the wall in one of the toilets. The pipe in the wall behind the shower had broke and water was sipping thru the wall out in the bedroom doing some damage to a wardrobe. We claimed for fixing the waterleak including new piping, cement and new tiles for the wall. We also claimed for damages to the wardrobe.

AIG responded with that they do not cover fixing the waterleak in the wall but they cover for damages to the wardrobe, which resulted in payment of about 10% of the total claim.

According to the english version is states that they do not cover for "water leakage through the wall" - I then ask me a) why do they cover for damages to the wardrobe what does "through" mean? The leak came from "inside" the wall.. (should I have ignored fixing the problem and have them pay more when water was everywhere in the house?)

According to the thai version it states that they cover for breaks of piping but excludes piping in the foundation.. As our piping was in the wall shouldn't they pay?

Pretty confusing...

2. The second claim was for a shortcircuted cable where 50% of the cable was outside the house and 50% of the cable was inside the house on the roof. This was the main electric cable coming from the electric meter into the house. The distance from the property wall to the house and up to the roof is approximately 4m and the cable on the roof is probably about the same. I got a "DENY" letter stating that they did not cover for electric cable installed outside the building and is not electrical appliances insured under Furniture, Fixture, Building Improvement and Household contents.

My question would be: Isn't the main electrical cable regarded as a fixture of the property as without it you wouldn't be able to do anything in the house ans shouldn't they pay for at least 50% of the cost?

Of course all this is subject to wording in the policy but maybe someone with the AIG property policy and who can read thai or someone in the industry has some tips and answers for me.

Thanks

[ThaivisaInsurance]

We must admit it sounds a little strange but would suggest your first port of call is with your Broker – ask then to help you though this.

[Topprofile]

We must admit it sounds a little strange but would suggest your first port of call is with your Broker – ask then to help you though this.

Well the broker only says it's up to the company...

[ThaivisaInsurance]

We must admit it sounds a little strange but would suggest your first port of call is with your Broker – ask then to help you though this.

Well the broker only says it's up to the company...

Mmmmmmm sorry, not a good answer from your Broker.

May we ask if you have pointed out the differences to AIG in the Thai / English translations (which should not be) and in the Thai version is states you are covered ?

If the company still insists they will not help then you will have to go to their governing body, the O.I.C.

[Topprofile]

I have got the thai version read to me by a friend and not sure about how accurate his translation is, but according to him the thai and english version does not say the same things. The thai version states that pipes in the foundation is not covered but doesn't specify the wall... I will need someone else to confirm this.

Anyway, I called them again and said that the english translation is not the same as the thai version, however the only reply was that they will not pay and they will send me an official letter about this on Monday (which I will give to a lawyer to have look at).

I asked why they would pay for damages to the furniture (wardrobe) if they didn't cover for fixing the piping and the response was that "they cover damage to furniture but they will not pay to fix the leak inside the wall. They don't pay for the pipe". So why would they pay for 1 part but not the not to fix the leak? It just doesn't make sense. If I didn't fix the leak there would be more damage and they would have to pay more.

Further the policy says under "replacement value" - "in the case of partial loss or damage, the Company shall repair or restore the damaged property to its normal condition but not better or more extensive than its condition when new"

The thing is not the money, as it really is not that much money, but rather the principle that they are trying to hide behind confusing paragraphs..

[Topprofile]

I think this is the part in the policy, if someone can read thai and let me know what it says and their oppinion.

[torrenova]

I learned many years ago that if at all possible, keep the buildings and contents insurance with the same company as it makes it impossible for them to argue that someone else is covering it !

[tonydabbs]

I have got the thai version read to me by a friend and not sure about how accurate his translation is, but according to him the thai and english version does not say the same things. The thai version states that pipes in the foundation is not covered but doesn't specify the wall... I will need someone else to confirm this.

Anyway, I called them again and said that the english translation is not the same as the thai version, however the only reply was that they will not pay and they will send me an official letter about this on Monday (which I will give to a lawyer to have look at).

I asked why they would pay for damages to the furniture (wardrobe) if they didn't cover for fixing the piping and the response was that "they cover damage to furniture but they will not pay to fix the leak inside the wall. They don't pay for the pipe". So why would they pay for 1 part but not the not to fix the leak? It just doesn't make sense. If I didn't fix the leak there would be more damage and they would have to pay more.

Further the policy says under "replacement value" - "in the case of partial loss or damage, the Company shall repair or restore the damaged property to its normal condition but not better or more extensive than its condition when new"

The thing is not the money, as it really is not that much money, but rather the principle that they are trying to hide behind confusing paragraphs..

Translation mistakes happen, even when Thai speakers translate the Thai to you. When Thai insurance companies give you an English translation they warn that that the Thai version of the policy is the only one that counts in court, since that is the version that has been approved by the government. The English version is provided only as a convenience. For the most part, though, the English version does accurately represent the coverage.

Now, about the water damage claim. I have experienced similar rejected claims with 2 other insurance companies (not AIG). Basically, it comes down to the fact that they will cover repair of the damage caused by the water, but they won't cover the repair of the source of the water damage. For example, damage from water drain overflow is covered, but fixing the drain isn't.

[geriatrickid]

If your policy was an "All Risk" policy, the policy insures all direct physical damage except otherwise limited or excluded. The response to the water damages in claim #1 is standard for all insurers. The policy is not intended to cover wear & tear, inherent defect or damage intentionally caused by an insured. It would seem that your pipe simply sprung a leak. If that's the case, then it's a legitimate adjustment. Resulting damage is covered but not the hole or leak in the pipe itself. Had the leak been caused by something like a support beam breaking, vehicle impact, the pipe damage would have been covered. Look at it another way, if the pipe had been improperly installed, that would have been inherent defect and the responsibility would rest with the contractor that put in the pipe. AIG's position is the same as any other insurer's.

An outside cable is not considered a fixture. Fixtures are items such as lights installed into the ceiling or wall, bookshelves that are part of a wall etc. The intent of the policy is not to cover outside electrical cables otherwise it would be specifically added back under the insuring extensions for things like pools, awnings etc.

An insurance policy cannot be expected to cover every event imaginable otherwise the cost of coverage would have to reflect that scope of coverage.