Not upheld: claim declined - gradual damage exclusion complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D claimed for water damage to his ensuite bathroom under his home insurance policy with LV. LV declined the claim, attributing the damage to gradual silicone failure rather than a sudden escape of water event. Although Mr D provided letters from two contractors suggesting a failed drain pipe caused the damage, LV's appointed contractor provided photographic evidence supporting silicone failure as the cause. The ombudsman found LV reasonably applied its policy exclusion for gradual damage, particularly as visible signs of water damage (mould and water marks) were evident in adjoining areas before the claim was made. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reviewed whether LV reasonably applied its policy exclusion for gradual wear and tear damage. Although Mr D's contractors suggested a failed drain pipe as the cause, LV's appointed contractor provided persuasive photographic evidence supporting silicone failure as the cause. The ombudsman found that visible signs of damage (mould, water marks) were apparent before the claim, and that LV reasonably relied on the exclusion for gradual damage. The ombudsman noted that while insurers cannot rely solely on gradual damage exclusions without visible signs, in this case there were visible signs that should have prompted earlier action.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website