Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against SiriusPoint International Insurance Corporation

Decision detail

Summary

G, a commercial pub operator, complained about SP's response to a sewage flood claim made in August 2024. SP initially accepted the claim but later avoided the policy after discovering G had failed to disclose financial history information (previous County Court Judgments) at policy inception. G also complained that SP's appointed agents carried out unnecessary stripping out works, particularly flooring removal across 320 square meters. The ombudsman found the policy avoidance was fair under the Insurance Act 2015 as G's non-disclosure constituted a qualifying misrepresentation. Regarding the claim response, the ombudsman found the stripping out works were reasonable based on a call recording showing G was aware flooring would likely be removed, expert moisture readings showing contamination across multiple areas, and the significant nature of the sewage flood. The ombudsman rejected G's later expert evidence as undermined by contemporaneous documentation and noted G's objections only arose after the avoidance decision. The complaint was not upheld except for directing payment of £150 compensation previously offered for service failings.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that G failed to make a fair presentation of risk under the Insurance Act 2015 by not disclosing financial history information, specifically previous County Court Judgments. SP were entitled to avoid the policy and decline the claim under the Act's remedies. Regarding the claim response, the ombudsman found the stripping out works were proportionate and reasonable based on: the call recording showing G was aware flooring would likely be uplifted; high moisture readings across multiple areas documented by expert B3; the significant nature of the sewage flood evidenced by B4's photos; and the hygiene requirements for areas contaminated by sewage. The ombudsman rejected G's later expert evidence as undermined by contemporaneous evidence and noted G's objections only arose after the policy avoidance decision. The ombudsman found no evidence that SP removed or disposed of G's contents beyond the flooring and fittings.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website