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

Decision detail

Summary

U, a limited business, complained that SiriusPoint unfairly declined a claim on its commercial property insurance policy for damage to a rental property following tenant eviction. The damage included holes in walls, mould, dirty skirting boards, and damaged fixtures, which Mr H claimed was malicious damage. U also claimed for stolen items and loss of rent. SiriusPoint declined all claims, stating the damage was consistent with neglect rather than malice, and the theft claim did not meet the policy requirement for forcible or violent entry. The ombudsman upheld SiriusPoint's decision, finding the damage evidence supported a finding of lack of care rather than deliberate malicious intent, the theft claim was properly declined under clear policy terms, and loss of rent could not be claimed without a valid underlying insurable event.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the plain language meaning of 'malicious damage' as damage caused through deliberate intention to cause harm or loss. The evidence showed most damage was consistent with general maintenance issues, lack of care, and poor cleaning rather than intentional damage. The theft claim was properly declined as the policy explicitly required forcible or violent entry, which did not occur when the tenant moved out. Loss of rent could not be claimed as there was no valid underlying insurable event. The burden was on the claimant to provide evidence supporting any alternative claim interpretation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website