Not upheld: claim handling - dispute over whether two separate incidents should be treated as one; causation of second leak complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

B, a residents' association, complained that AXA Insurance incorrectly recorded two water pipe leaks in 2023 and 2024 as separate incidents, charging two excesses. B argued the second leak resulted from improper repair of the first leak, specifically that the excavation was backfilled with rubble rather than protective infill material, leaving the pipe vulnerable. AXA maintained the leaks were in separate locations and resulted from the pipe's overall deterioration. The ombudsman found no reliable evidence that the second leak was caused by AXA's repair work, noting the 16-month gap between incidents and the pipe's pre-existing failure condition. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the second leak occurred in a section of pipe exposed during the first repair, this proximity alone does not prove causation. The policy only requires AXA to repair the damaged section, not replace the entire exposed pipe. No reliable independent evidence contradicted AXA's assertion that the repair was completed properly with appropriate protection. The 16-month gap between leaks and the pipe's pre-existing condition of failure suggest the second leak resulted from the pipe's overall deterioration rather than negligent repair work. Other factors such as water table and drainage variations could explain differences in ground saturation between the two repair locations.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website