Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against MSIG Europe SE

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K claimed on his boat insurance policy with MS Amlin for damage sustained during a storm whilst in storage. MS Amlin rejected the claim, stating the damage was caused by the boat being stored on a damaged and insufficient trailer. Mr K disputed this, arguing the damage was due to the storm and the trailer was structurally fine. The ombudsman applied a three-question test for storm damage and found that while a storm occurred and the damage was consistent with storm damage, the proximate cause was the poor condition of the trailer. The surveyor's expert report concluded the trailer was heavily rusted, not fit for purpose, and that the support bars had broken away due to rust, making it unlikely the boat would have blown over if the trailer had been in satisfactory condition. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a three-question test for storm damage claims: (1) Was there a storm? Yes, confirmed by MS Amlin and weather reports. (2) Is the damage consistent with storm damage? Yes, the external damage is consistent with impact from falling. (3) Was the storm the proximate cause? No. The ombudsman was persuaded by the surveyor's expert opinion that the trailer's poor condition was the main cause, as the support bars had broken away due to rust and the trailer was not fit for purpose. The fact that no other boats in the yard were impacted further supported that the trailer condition, not the storm, was the proximate cause.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website