Multimillionaire couple sue insurers for £1m over fire that 'engulfed' their £2m house and £300k watch collection - after firm refused to pay out because they'd failed to declare building work

Daily Mail​

12 hours ago

A multimillionaire couple are embroiled in a £1million legal battle with their insurer after the firm did not pay up for part of rebuilding costs as well as damage to a collection of Rolexes following a house fire.
The £2million home of wedding makeup artist Biborka Bellhouse and her property investment boss husband Charles Bellhouse went up in flames on December 29, 2022, with 60 firefighters and eight fire engines having to bring the blaze under control.
The four-bed detached house in Park Road, Chiswick, was seriously damaged in the blaze which broke out while they were in the process of having it extended and refurbished.
Following the fire, which the couple say caused them 'psychological harm', they went on to claim £16,000 towards scaffolding to make the property safe and around £140,000 for alternative accommodation and furniture from their insurers, Zurich.
Although the insurance firm agreed to pay the couple around £155,000 towards these costs, they refused to pay out over £1million for claims made for rebuilding the property, as well as a luxury watch collection.
Mr Bellhouse, 46, and Mrs Bellhouse, 42, claimed around £600,000 to rebuild the house and up to £475,000 for contents, which included the property investment boss's Rolex Chronograph and Patek Philippe watches.
The Rolex Chronograph and the Patek were individually insured for £40,000 and £187,000 respectively, while three other Rolex watches were insured for £75,000.
Now the couple are suing Zurich Insurance Plc, by taking them to the High Court in a bid to force them to pay out so they can reconstruct their destroyed home.
But, the insurance firm has insisted the family had breached the terms of their cover and thus invalidated their policy as they failed to inform them about the construction of their extension.
In documents submitted to the court, Mek Mesfin, representing the multi-millionaire couple, explained the fire broke out causing 'substantial damage' to their home.
Neither the couple or their children were home when the incident occurred.
'Following the fire, a claim was made under the policy,' said the barrister, who went to claim Zurich has 'wrongfully and in breach of the terms of the policy' refused to accept liability beyond scaffolding and rehousing payments.
'[The insurance firm] has refused to pay the claimants any sum in respect of the losses which the claimants have suffered as a consequence of the fire.'
According to the barrister, only one of the valuable watches was in the home at the time of the fire, however boxes and authenticity certificates may have perished in the flames, potentially impacting the value of the other luxury accessories.
'The authentication materials, including the boxes and/or certification, for the watches were in the property during the fire. Due to the unsafe condition of the property, the claimants do not know, but assume, whether they have been damaged or destroyed,' he said.
Mr Mesfin insisted his clients are entitled to indemnity and/or damages from the insurance firm if the items suffered a loss in value as a result of damage to authentication materials in the fire.
The couple are also claiming 'medical expenses' of around £8,000 from Zurich, stating that they have suffered 'psychological harm' and needed therapy due to Zurich's failure to pay up.
They also want around £20,000 for additional scaffolding costs and around £600,000 to rebuild the property, although they say the project may cost more.
However, lawyers for Zurich say it is not obliged to pay out anything else on the policy and has 'avoided liability' due to a 'misrepresentation'.
They say that when the couple took out the insurance, they had no plans to carry out any major works to their home within the next 12 months.
The company says it would not have insured the house had it known the extension and renovation was planned and as such the policy is invalid.
At a pre-trial hearing in the case, Judge David Hodge explained: 'Zurich asserts that in May 2022, the claimants made a deliberate or reckless, or careless, qualifying misrepresentation by misrepresenting their intention to carry out contract works to their home in the following 12 months.
'The claimants expressly confirmed...that the property was not likely to undergo any contract works within the next 12 months
'The claimants did then, in fact, carry out the contract works; and these caused loss and damage, both to the contract works themselves, and to the property, on 29 December 2022, when a fire occurred during the course of the contract works.
'Without the misrepresentation, Zurich would not have entered into the contract of insurance with the claimants at all. Zurich have now avoided the policy.'
However, he said the couple deny making a 'qualifying misrepresentation' and insist there is 'no factual basis' for the allegations made against them.
They are suing for a declaration that Zurich is obliged under the insurance policy to compensate them in respect of the claim, together with an indemnity, damages, interest and costs.
In its defence, Zurich barrister Daniel Crowley says that as well as denying they are liable to pay out anything else, the insurer is counterclaiming in a bid to force the family to pay back the £169,507 it has already paid out to them.
The couple and the insurers have already clashed in two preliminary hearings. The case will now return to court for a full trial unless it is settled beforehand.