Not upheld: unfair claim decline - pre-existing damage exclusion complaint against UK Insurance Limited trading as Direct Line

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M purchased a property and buildings insurance policy with Direct Line and subsequently discovered cracks and damage she believed were new or ongoing. She claimed on her policy, but Direct Line declined the claim on the basis that the damage pre-existed the policy start date and the policy excluded such damage. The ombudsman found that based on all available evidence, including Mrs M's own reports, Direct Line reasonably concluded the damage pre-existed the policy and there was no evidence of ongoing subsidence movement. Therefore, the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the key issue was whether the damage occurred before the policy started and whether there was evidence of ongoing property movement. Based on all available evidence, including Mrs M's own reports, the ombudsman was satisfied that Direct Line reasonably concluded the damage pre-existed the policy and that the property was not still moving. Therefore, Direct Line's reliance on the pre-existing damage exclusion in the policy terms was reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website