Not upheld: claim denial - malicious damage coverage complaint against Covea Insurance Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R and Mrs R complained about Covea's decision to decline a claim on their landlord insurance policy for damage to a rental property after an ex-tenant vacated. Covea concluded the damage was consistent with wear and tear rather than malicious damage covered by the policy. Mr R argued the ex-tenant's hostile behaviour, refusal to leave, and failure to maintain the property demonstrated malicious intent. The ombudsman upheld Covea's decision, finding that 'malicious damage' requires deliberate or intentional destructive conduct, and the available evidence including photographs and checkout reports showed neglected maintenance and poor housekeeping rather than deliberate vandalism. The ombudsman noted the policy responds to the nature of damage itself, not to the tenant's general behaviour or relationship breakdown.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman established that 'malicious damage' in ordinary insurance terms means deliberate or intentional destructive conduct, not damage resulting from wear and tear, deterioration, or neglect. While acknowledging the disputed relationship between Mr R and the ex-tenant, the ombudsman determined that the policy responds to the nature and cause of damage itself, not to the tenant's general behaviour or the breakdown of the landlord-tenant relationship. The available evidence, including photographs and the checkout report, showed neglected maintenance and poor housekeeping rather than deliberate vandalism or targeted destruction, supporting Covea's reasonable conclusion that the damage did not fall within malicious damage cover.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website