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

Decision detail

Summary

S, a company, complained that MSIG Europe SE unfairly declined its business interruption and storage costs claim following a ceiling collapse at its premises. MSIG declined the business interruption claim because there was no evidence that a claim had been made on the landlord's buildings insurance policy or that any payment or liability had been accepted, which was a condition precedent in the policy. MSIG also declined the storage costs claim as the policy provided no cover for items moved into storage due to inability to trade. The ombudsman found that MSIG's decisions were fair and reasonable, as the policy condition was not satisfied and the storage costs fell outside the scope of cover provided.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the policy terms clearly required that a payment had been made or liability accepted on a buildings insurance policy covering the building as a condition of cover for business interruption. Since there was no evidence that a claim was made on the landlord's buildings insurance policy or that any payment or liability was accepted, the condition precedent was not satisfied. Therefore, MSIG fairly declined the claim. Regarding storage costs, the policy provided no cover for items moved into storage due to inability to trade where there was no damage to those items.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website