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

Decision detail

Summary

F, represented by Miss A, complained about SIIC's handling of a buildings insurance claim for storm damage in December 2023. SIIC accepted the internal damage claim under accidental damage but declined the external roof damage claim after three inspections (including a drone survey) consistently concluded the damage was not storm-related but caused by poor previous repairs and failing flashings. The ombudsman upheld SIIC's decision, finding the multiple inspections provided sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the damage was not consistent with storm damage and that the policy exclusion for faulty workmanship applied. The complaint was not upheld, and the £50 compensation already offered by SIIC was deemed sufficient.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that SIIC acted fairly in declining the external damage claim. Multiple independent inspections, including a drone survey, consistently concluded the damage was not consistent with storm damage and showed evidence of poor previous repairs. The ombudsman found the passage of time between damage and drone survey was not unreasonable, and the photographic evidence supported SIIC's conclusions. The ombudsman also found no avoidable delays in arranging the initial inspection and determined that as the complaint was brought on behalf of a legal entity (not a natural person), compensation for distress could not be awarded, making the £50 already offered sufficient.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website