Not all Accidental Damage policies are as good as a traditional Fire and Perils Home Policy
There was an article last week which suggested a French Bulldog was playing with a cigarette lighter, and consequently caused a major house fire. This is the first time I have heard of this as a cause.
The article makes mention that the Insured’s policy is likely not going to cover them for the fire damage. Why? If the policy has an exclusion which states that loss or damage occasioned by or happening through animals or domestic pets with no write back for resultant damage from a peril not otherwise excluded, here fire, then the policy will not respond.
Under a traditional fire and perils policy, a loss caused by the peril of fire would have been covered.
The question is, is this fair? Particularly when an Accidental Damage policy is typically more expensive than a traditional fire and perils home and contents policy.
I think not.
I have written about the risk to insureds and brokers that do not check the write back provisions of the policies they purchase and or recommend before, and this is another good example of why it is so important.