All templatesPOLICY WORDING REVIEW
To: Naomi Chebet Kosgei
From: Kamau & Wekesa Advocates LLP
Date: 8 October 2026
Re: Heritage Mutual Insurance Company Limited — Property Policy, Policy Wording Review
1. Question
Whether water damage from a pipe that burst after corroding for years is covered or excluded as gradual deterioration.
2. Brief Answer
The claim is likely to engage the Section 1 cover for loss by burst pipes, but the insurer is also likely to rely on Exclusion 4(b), which excludes loss arising from gradual deterioration or wear and tear. Which provision prevails will turn on the immediate cause of the loss: if the operative cause is the bursting of the pipe, the loss is likely to be covered; if the operative cause is the corrosion that preceded it, the exclusion is likely to apply. The wording as supplied does not resolve that question, and a deduction on account of the average clause and the excess would in any event reduce the amount recoverable.
3. The Policy Wording Reviewed
1. Section 1 covers loss by fire, lightning and burst pipes.
2. Exclusion 4(b) excludes “loss arising from gradual deterioration or wear and tear”.
3. The sum insured is KES 18,000,000 with an average clause.
4. The excess is 10% of each claim, minimum KES 50,000.
This review is of the wording set out above only, and the full policy document must be checked before the advice is relied on.
4. Analysis
1. The cover engaged is Section 1, which expressly covers loss by burst pipes. On the facts described in the concern, water damage following the bursting of a pipe falls within the class of loss that Section 1 was intended to cover.
2. The provision the insurer is likely to rely on is Exclusion 4(b), which excludes “loss arising from gradual deterioration or wear and tear”. That exclusion is directed at loss whose originating cause is the progressive condition of the property itself, rather than at the event that finally releases the damage.
3. The words of Exclusion 4(b) require the loss to arise from gradual deterioration. On the facts, the pipe corroded over a period of years before it burst. The insurer may argue that the corrosion is the true cause of the loss and that the escape of water was merely its consequence, so that the loss arises from gradual deterioration and is excluded.
4. The contrary reading is that the immediate and efficient cause of the loss was the bursting of the pipe, an event expressly covered by Section 1, and that the earlier corrosion is no more than background to it. On that reading the loss is covered and the exclusion does not displace the Section 1 cover.
5. The wording as supplied is ambiguous on this point. Section 1 and Exclusion 4(b) do not state which is to prevail where a covered peril and a gradual deterioration exclusion operate on the same chain of events, and neither provision is expressed to be subject to the other. Both readings are therefore open on the words used, and the outcome is likely to depend on how the immediate cause of the loss is characterised.
Insurance
Insurance Policy Wording Review Memo template (Kenya)
What it is for
A sample Insurance Policy Wording Review Memo for use in Kenya, drafted under the Insurance Act Cap 487 and the Law of Contract Act Cap 23.
The Kenyan law it follows
- Insurance Act Cap 487
- Law of Contract Act Cap 23 — policy as contract
Who prepares it
This is normally drawn by an advocate, and where it is a court paper, filed by one. The sample shows what the finished document looks like.
Draft this for your matter
Advocates draft this on Lex from their own facts and download it in Word. If you need one prepared for you, find an advocate.
Sample insurance policy wording review memo
The first part of the sample is shown here. The names, amounts and facts are made up to show how the document reads.
The rest of this insurance policy wording review memo is for Lex members
Create a free account to read the whole sample, draft it for your matter and download it in Word.
This is a sample for general information. It is not legal advice and may not suit your situation. Laws change, and a document has to fit your own facts; have an advocate check it before you rely on it.