Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G claimed for storm damage to his home's roof flashing after returning from holiday in August 2022. Admiral declined the claim, stating no storm had occurred. After an earlier complaint to the FOS resulted in £200 compensation for delays, Mr G obtained a cause of damage report in June 2025 attributing the damage to heavy rain. Admiral maintained its decision to decline the claim. The ombudsman found that while rainfall of 24.8mm per hour was recorded (close to the policy's 25mm threshold), Mr G had not proven the storm was the main cause of damage, as heavy rain alone rarely damages well-maintained properties and the original roofer's invoice cited extreme heat as the cause. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the policy definition of storm and required Mr G to prove on the balance of probabilities that a storm occurred and was the main cause of damage. While rainfall of 24.8mm per hour was recorded (close to the 25mm threshold), the ombudsman noted that heavy rain alone rarely causes damage to well-maintained properties and is more likely to highlight existing faults. The original roofer's invoice attributed the damage to extreme heat, not storm damage. The later cause of damage report, written almost 3 years after the incident without reference to external damage or photos, was given limited weight. The ombudsman concluded it was more likely the rain exposed an existing issue with the flashing rather than being the predominant cause of damage.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website