Not upheld: unfair claim decline - storm damage complaint against Advantage Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G claimed for water damage to his home on 31 July 2025, which he attributed to a storm. Advantage declined the claim, stating the damage was caused by pre-existing wear and tear of the roof. The ombudsman examined weather records showing maximum rainfall of 2.6-4.6mm per hour and wind speeds under 30mph, both significantly below the policy's storm definition (25mm per hour rainfall or 55mph winds). The ombudsman also reviewed the surveyor's assessment identifying pre-existing roof deterioration including cracked mortar, degraded stonework, and a failed concrete fillet. The ombudsman upheld Advantage's decline, finding no storm conditions occurred and the damage resulted from gradual roof deterioration rather than a storm event.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the three-question test for storm damage claims: (1) did storm conditions occur, (2) is the damage consistent with storm damage, and (3) was the storm the main cause. The ombudsman found that recorded rainfall of 2.6-4.6mm per hour and wind speeds under 30mph fell far short of the policy's definition requiring 25mm per hour rainfall or 55mph winds. Therefore, no storm conditions occurred, allowing Advantage to reasonably decline the claim. The ombudsman also found the surveyor's evidence of pre-existing roof deterioration (cracked mortar, degraded stonework, failed concrete fillet) persuasive, concluding the water ingress resulted from gradual wear and tear, not a storm event. The ombudsman acknowledged the delay in inspection but found this did not affect the fairness of the decline decision.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website