Burn_Phoenix

I probably won't be the most popoular person on here as i'm an insurance broker but here goes. I've recently had a client make a claim after finding their property being used as a cannabis factory. In this instance when they arrived for the inspection they found the door open and the place was trashed as per all the above stories. The claim was put through as a malicious damage claim but insurers have declined as they do not class it as malicious damage, the damage was the result of the cultivation of the plants and with no malicious intent. As a general point it is possible to get cover for malicious damage cause by the tenants but it's usually an optional extra and may only be available on certain risks, i.e. professional tenants, but could be excluded if tenants are students/asylum seekers or anything else out of the ordinary. This still wouldn't help for the cannabis factory problem as the definition of malicious damage is the same. The only thing I've found in policy wordings which may offer the relevant cover is an extension called Unauthorised Alteration, which basically covers damages caused to the property following alterations made to the property by the tenants not authorised by the landlord (as per the tenancy agreement, which as a rule of thumb does not allow illegal operations!). I would also point out that with this insurer a condition of this extension is that properties are inspected at least once every 6 months and records of these inspections are made. The insurers have this extension automatically now, but didn't at the time of the claim, which is incovenient, but we're fighting it from the angle that we were not made aware that this extention was available at the time of placing cover, it's a very weak argument now but it's something. I don't normally deal with claims and have only gotten involved because insurers were being particularly unhelpful but I recommend looking out for this extension, i'm not sure if all insurers offer it or not. It still may not be the elusive answer, but the verdicts still out!

Hi Guys, I probably won't be the most popoular person on here as i'm an insurance broker but here goes. I've recently had a client make a claim after finding their property being used as a cannabis factory. In this instance when they arrived for the inspection they found the door open and the place was trashed as per all the above stories. The claim was put through as a malicious damage claim but insurers have declined as they do not class it as malicious damage, the damage was the result of the cultivation of the plants and with no malicious intent. As a general point it is possible to get cover for malicious damage cause by the tenants but it's usually an optional extra and may only be available on certain risks, i.e. professional tenants, but could be excluded if tenants are students/asylum seekers or anything else out of the ordinary. This still wouldn't help for the cannabis factory problem as the definition of malicious damage is the same. The only thing I've found in policy wordings which may offer the relevant cover is an extension called Unauthorised Alteration, which basically covers damages caused to the property following alterations made to the property by the tenants not authorised by the landlord (as per the tenancy agreement, which as a rule of thumb does not allow illegal operations!). I would also point out that with this insurer a condition of this extension is that properties are inspected at least once every 6 months and records of these inspections are made. The insurers have this extension automatically now, but didn't at the time of the claim, which is incovenient, but we're fighting it from the angle that we were not made aware that this extention was available at the time of placing cover, it's a very weak argument now but it's something. I don't normally deal with claims and have only gotten involved because insurers were being particularly unhelpful but I recommend looking out for this extension, i'm not sure if all insurers offer it or not. It still may not be the elusive answer, but the verdicts still out!