We have a claim accepted for defective workmanship. In order for the workmanship to be rectified the homeowner needs to vacate the property and go into temporary accommodation.
The combined cost of rectifying the works and the temporary accommodation looks likely to exceed the defective workmanship sub-limit.
The temporary accommodation is not a direct cost of the workmanship remediation.
Should these costs be considered under the general limit of indemnity rather than in the workmanship sub-limit?
The insurer is claiming as the workmanship extension is a write back up to a certain amount, and the loss would otherwise be excluded under the workmanship and insured products exclusions that the total claim is capped at the sub-limit.
Do we have a case to argue that it should be paid separately?
Crossley Gates replies:
I would consider the claimant's temporary accommodation to be a result of the workmanship remediation so the insurer would be correct in including within the DW sub-limit under the policy.