Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against MSIG Europe SE

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W claimed under his real estate insurance policy for damage to a 150-year-old boundary retaining wall that collapsed in April 2024, attributing the damage to Storm Kathleen. MSIG declined the claim, concluding the wall failed due to long-term groundwater pressure build-up and gradual deterioration, not the storm. The ombudsman found that while a storm did occur on 6 April 2024, evidence showed the initial failure (masonry falling) occurred on 3 April 2024 before any storm conditions, and the structural evidence supported that the proximate cause was age-related decay and poor drainage rather than the storm peril. The ombudsman rejected Mr W's argument that the policy should cover damage regardless of the property's condition, noting the policy includes maintenance requirements. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the three-part test for storm peril claims: (1) whether storm conditions occurred on or around the date of damage; (2) whether the damage is consistent with typical storm damage; and (3) whether the storm was the proximate cause. While a storm did occur on 6 April 2024, the evidence showed that the initial failure (masonry falling) occurred on 3 April 2024, before any storm conditions. The ombudsman found that the proximate cause was the long-term build-up of groundwater pressure and gradual deterioration of the wall over time, not the storm. Although the storm may have acted as a trigger for the main collapse, this does not establish it as the proximate cause. The ombudsman rejected the argument that the policy should cover damage to property regardless of its condition, noting that the policy includes maintenance requirements and that the evidence clearly demonstrated gradual decay over time rather than damage caused by the storm peril.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website