Not upheld: unfair claim decline - escape of water complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F and Miss A claimed for water damage to their kitchen caused by water escaping from the bathroom above. LV initially declined citing lack of cover for wet rooms, then reconsidered and declined again based on expert evidence showing the damage resulted from poor installation of the wet room flooring and gradual water penetration over time. The ombudsman found LV fairly relied on policy exclusions for gradual damage and poor workmanship, and that the claim was handled within a reasonable timeframe. Although the claimants have a vulnerable child, the ombudsman considered the short timeframe meant LV could not be expected to provide additional support. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while water had clearly escaped from the bathroom (an insured cause), the underlying cause of the damage was poor installation of the wet room flooring, which is not covered under the policy. The surveyor's evidence of gradual water penetration over time, supported by photographs showing incorrect installation and progressive damage to the subfloor, was more persuasive than the claimants' contractor's assertion of a sudden failure. The policy excludes cover for damage caused by poor design, workmanship, and gradual damage. LV handled the claim reasonably within ten days and appropriately recorded the vulnerability information, though the short timeframe meant limited additional support could be expected.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website