Laying the right foundation: Be wary of construction defects and rejected insurance claims

Acquiring a home is often a major investment decision, yet ironically, sometimes also a decision resulting in great financial loss. Homeowners frequently experience loss through theft or damage to their home, with damage generally arising from accidents or natural causes. It is for these reasons that it is critical for a homeowner to protect his interests, principally through obtaining homeowner’s insurance policies. These insurance policies help reduce your risk by moving the risk of loss or damage to the insurer in exchange for the payment of a premium.

However, obtaining homeowner’s insurance does not mean you are covered for every eventuality. Is this protection absolute, or does it have exclusions and terms and conditions which may affect the extent of your protection? Knowing the terms of your insurance and understanding the implications thereof are important to ensuring that your primary asset is well protected against future loss or harm.

A homeowner who has a homeowner’s insurance policy is indemnified by his insurer in the event that he should suffer loss, up to the total value of the loss or the total value for which he is insured, whichever is the smaller. Payment of any insurance proceeds is however subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the approval of the insurance claim by the insurer.

Various factors are taken into account by the insurer when considering insurance claims, with the most significant factor being a determination as to whether the insured is actually covered for the loss which he is claiming for.

Certain events are specifically excluded by the insurer and, unbeknown to most people, this often includes poor design or construction as the main or most likely cause of the loss. 

Design or construction defects can include poorly damp-proofed building foundations, inadequate roof pitch preventing water from flowing freely off the roof, insufficient spacing of tiles and boundary walls not built according to applicable regulations. For example, if tiles in an insured’s home start cracking as a result of inadequate spacing which allows for normal contraction and expansion, the insured might not have a valid claim against his insurer.

This can be devastating for a homeowner who has already sustained damage to his home and does not have the funds to repair the damage himself and trusting that his insurer would cover him in the event of such loss.

It is thus vital for every homeowner to know exactly what his insurer will cover him for and what is excluded. But even more importantly, to be aware of any potential construction defects in your home which could result in damage.

When deciding to purchase a house, consider obtaining the help of a qualified professional to help inspect the property to ascertain whether or not the property has been built in accordance with relevant building regulations or similar legislation, to avoid your insurance claims being rejected in the event of loss due to structural or building defects.

In the event that you have already purchased your home and have taken out a homeowner’s insurance policy with an insurer who will not cover you for damage arising from construction defects, you can still avoid having your insurance claims rejected by rectifying (where possible) the construction defects before serious damage is done to your home.

However, for the individual who is of the opinion that the above measures are too challenging or costly for him a simpler remedy is available. Although insurance policies appear to be rigid agreements, an arrangement can always be made with the insurer to accommodate the insured’s specific needs. An insured can take out an extension of cover which will indemnify him for loss due to an event that is not typically covered by the insurer. This will generally result in an increase in the insurance premiums payable, a cost that must be weighed against the possibility of the event arising and the damage that may ensue should such event arise.

Insurers indicate in their policy documents that clients should read the agreements carefully. However, with homeowners often intimidated by the legal nature of the documents or pre-occupied with their sale transaction, this task if often disregarded. To ensure that you are aware of your insurance coverage and exclusions, make a point of reading your homeowners insurance policy and consider addressing any risk areas that may fall outside your policy with you insurer to avoid future disappointment.

May 20, 2013
Checkmate for Pawn Agreements: How the Recent SCA Judgment Protects Consumers from Pawnbroker Profits

Checkmate for Pawn Agreements: How the Recent SCA Judgment Protects Consumers from Pawnbroker Profits

In a landmark judgment delivered on 9 April 2025, where VDT Attorneys acted on behalf of the National Credit Regulator, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal (the “SCA”) brought clarity to the rights and obligations of consumers and pawnbrokers when dealing with pawned goods. In the case of The Loan Company (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator and Another (1104/2023) [2025] ZASCA 40, the SCA confirmed a critical principle, i.e. if a pawned asset is sold for more than the outstanding loan and lawful charges, the surplus must be refunded to the consumer. Pawnbrokers cannot lawfully keep the full sale proceeds. This ruling marks a major victory for consumer protection, reinforcing South Africa’s commitment to fairness in credit transactions.

Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

On 24 September, we pause to take time off to commemorate Heritage Day, a day enshrined in both our public calendar and the Constitution. A constitutional affirmation of who we are, where we come from, and where we are headed as a nation. As a new breed law firm, we reflect on how the practice of law is intertwined with the heritage of the very people it serves.

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Due to the potential adverse investment impact and stakeholder concerns on the proposed amendment to the definition of “hybrid equity instrument” in the 2025 draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (“Bill”), the proposed amendment has been retracted. On 03 September, the National Treasury issued a media statement retracting the proposal to redefine hybrid equity instruments, which has been a relief to all stakeholders.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest