Not upheld: claim decline - storm damage complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

X claimed for roof damage occurring on 24/25 January 2025 during a named storm, but Aviva declined the claim. Aviva's surveyor attributed the damage to wear and tear and water ingress from failed Velux windows rather than storm damage. The ombudsman examined whether storm conditions meeting the policy definition (wind gusts exceeding 55 mph) occurred at X's location and found weather data showed only 46 mph peak gusts. Although a named storm occurred nationally, it did not impact X's specific location with sufficient force to qualify as a valid storm claim under the policy. The ombudsman upheld Aviva's decision to decline the claim and found no need to consider whether the damage was consistent with typical storm damage or was the main cause. X accepted £250 compensation for poor claim handling.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FOS three-question framework for storm claims. The first question—whether storm conditions occurred—was answered 'no' because weather data showed peak gusts of 46 mph at X's location, below the policy's 55 mph threshold. Although a named storm occurred nationally, it did not impact X's location with sufficient force to meet the policy definition. The ombudsman found the contractor quotes unpersuasive as they lacked expert commentary explaining why storm damage was the main cause or evidence supporting the policy definition being met. No expert evidence contradicted Aviva's surveyor's findings of wear and tear and water ingress from failed Velux windows.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website