Not upheld: claim declined - causation dispute (storm damage vs wear and tear) complaint against Intact Insurance UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms B and Mr B claimed for storm damage to their flat roof that suffered water ingress in winter 2024/5, but Intact declined the claim on the basis that damage was caused by wear and tear over time rather than a storm event. The complainants argued heavy rainfall and wind between November 2024 and February 2025 had overwhelmed the roof and provided evidence of three roofers recommending total replacement. Intact's surveyor concluded the damage resulted from long-standing water ingression and poor roof condition. The ombudsman applied the three-stage storm test and found no recorded storm event meeting industry parameters occurred, and that wear and tear was the dominant cause of damage, which is explicitly excluded from the policy. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a three-stage test for storm claims: (1) whether storm conditions occurred; (2) whether damage is consistent with storm damage; (3) whether storm was the main cause. No storm event meeting industry parameters was evidenced. Even if weather had been a factor, the dominant and effective cause was wear and tear over time, which is explicitly excluded from the policy. The surveyor's reliance on online imagery was reasonable given the roof had been dismantled before inspection, and the extent of deterioration evidenced by the need for total replacement supported the wear and tear conclusion.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website