Compensation for repair of garden wall after storm, knowing that it is a temporary solution.

Questioner

We reported storm damage to the garden wall to the insurer. We discovered that it had cracks in the joints and that the wall was loose. The insurer sent a construction company. They said that it was due to a faulty construction and that this will not be reimbursed. The wall has been attached to the house since 1965 and a small wall was added in 1976 by the previous owner, so we find it strange that after so many years the construction suddenly appears to be faulty. Below is the insurer's response. We initially rejected the damage to your garden wall A company determined the cause of the damage to your garden wall. They indicated that the garden wall became loose due to the construction of the garden wall. The storm was the straw that broke the camel's back overflow. Damage resulting from a construction error is not insured. That is why we pointed out your damage off. You can read this in the insurance conditions Residential property, article 3.2 page 7, under the heading storm in the second column. Model WOO-RV-50-201 applies to you. A copy of the insurance conditions I added it as an attachment. We will still process your claim You requested information from the municipality about the building regulations around 1976. This is the period in which your garden wall was built. Correspondence from the municipality shows that the The building code as we know it today has existed since 1992. The municipality states that At that time, building regulations were included in the municipal building regulations. However, there were no rules specifically describing the requirements a garden wall had to meet. Damage as The result of a 'fault' in the construction is excluded from coverage. However, if it turns out that there is a If a different building code applied at the time of construction or if there were no requirements regarding construction, we will make an exception here. We will therefore still process your claim. Continuation of the letter from March 9, 2021 You do not agree with the amount of compensation You think a compensation of €1000,- is too low. You cannot buy a new wall with this. That is why you expressed your dissatisfaction. We will not pay more than the repair costs of €1000 for your garden wall We asked Koenders for the repair costs for the current garden wall. Because we leave the choice to you want to restore the current wall or opt for a new wall, we offered you the to transfer the repair costs of €1000,- to your account. You have not agreed to this up until now. We will not pay more than the damage and will therefore not pay more than the repair costs of €1000. You are not insured for the costs of a new wall. This is in conflict with the principle of indemnity (Article 7:960 of the Dutch Civil Code) This means that your insurance policy does not allow the handling of a claim lead to compensation higher than the actual damage suffered. Let us know if you agree with our proposal We would like to hear from you that you agree with our proposal. Please let us know within the limitation period of 3 years. If you agree, we will pay the repair costs. Any subsequent damage due to the same cause is not unforeseen if the cause is not is being adjusted Reinforcing the structure or installing a new wall is at your own expense. However, we do advise you to take measures to prevent new damage. Koenders total construction indicates that restoration of the current wall provides a temporary solution. When the construction is not adjusted and damage occurs again due to the same cause, this will damage is not unexpected. Damage resulting from an unforeseen cause is not insured. You reads in the insurance conditions Residential Home, article 3.1 page 5, where a damage event occurs must meet to be eligible for compensation. You can read here that damage is caused unexpectedly has to happen

Lawyer

The insurer wants to pay, right? It is now still about the extent of the damage, the offer seems reasonable to me given the age of the wall. As the owner, you are also expected to replace it at your own expense after a certain time. Given the age, that was coming.

Questioner

They said that a wall does not depreciate and it also does not say that a wall must be replaced by the owner after a certain period of time. What I am concerned about is whether it should not be compensation for a proper repair and not compensation that they know is not proper. A new wall costs between 4000 and 5000 euros. There were no rules or requirements specifically for the construction of a garden wall, so how can they prove that it is due to a faulty construction and not due to the storm and now say that we have to provide the structural reinforcement ourselves, because otherwise it can happen again and it is no longer unforeseen and then no compensation will be paid for the same cause in the event of damage, while there were/are no rules or requirements specifically for a garden wall.

Lawyer

I think that after the investigation the insurer can prove that the construction was built against the rules by the extra wall, which means that the construction is not strong enough and resistant enough. But I would have to read the arguments in their entirety for further explanation requests. In any case, when you bought the house you accepted the condition of the wall as it was and therefore the responsibility if something goes wrong. The insurer is also not asking you to rebuild badly but is offering partial compensation for temporary reinforcement. Of course you do have the right to refute the insurer's arguments or to file an internal complaint.