Upheld: unfair claim settlement - inadequate cash settlement for storm damage repairs complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M claimed for storm damage to his fibre glass roof in January 2025. LV's appointed Surveyor offered 50% of roof replacement costs (£9,040), which was later reduced to £8,500 based on Mr M's roofer's quote. Mr M's roofer reported the entire roof should be replaced as the remaining section was damaged by the storm and at risk of further damage. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that the storm was the dominant cause of damage to the entire roof and that effective repairs required full replacement. LV was required to pay the full £17,200 plus 8% interest, as it had not justified the 50% settlement figure and had failed to properly investigate video evidence of storm damage to the remaining roof.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the three-question test for storm damage: (1) did a storm occur - yes; (2) was damage consistent with storm - yes; (3) was storm the dominant cause - yes. LV accepted the first two questions but the ombudsman found the third question should also be answered 'yes'. The ombudsman found Mr M's roofer's evidence persuasive that the entire roof was damaged by the storm and that effective and long lasting repairs required full replacement. The ombudsman rejected LV's argument about pre-existing poor condition and betterment, finding the work required was a direct result of insured damage. The ombudsman found no reasonable explanation for the 50% figure and noted LV failed to follow up on video evidence of storm damage to the remaining roof.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website