Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against HCC International Insurance Company Plc trading as Tokio Marine HCC

Decision detail

Summary

H complained about Tokio's handling of a commercial buildings insurance claim following a water escape in late 2023. Tokio made an initial settlement of £33,500 in November 2024 and further payments totalling approximately £12,300 in June 2025 and January 2026. H sought an additional £35,000 and requested Tokio fund a RICS surveyor, claiming that electrical works, sub-floor remediation, mould resistant paint, and surveyor fees should be covered. The ombudsman rejected all additional claims, finding that H had failed to mitigate losses by not conducting strip-out works within 18 months of the leak, that electrical and sub-floor damage were not caused by the water escape, and that Tokio's settlements were fair and reasonable. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Tokio had made reasonable settlement offers based on the information provided. For the kitchen, the November 2024 settlement was fair despite cost increases, as Tokio had already paid based on the original quote. For electrical works, H failed to provide evidence that damage was caused by the water escape rather than pre-existing issues, and had ample time (7 months) to conduct strip-out works to determine damage. For sub-floor works, the ombudsman found it more likely that pre-existing damp issues caused the damage rather than the leak, particularly given the property's age, auction purchase status, and lack of ventilation. H failed to mitigate losses by not conducting strip-out works within 18 months of the leak. For mould resistant paint, the ombudsman found that extensive strip-out works would have removed mould-affected plaster, and H provided no photographic evidence of remaining mould. The surveyor fee was not recoverable as the major works requiring sign-off had been fairly declined. Loss of rental income was not awarded because H failed to mitigate losses by not using the substantial November 2024 settlement to fund essential works. While Tokio could have settled the final payment earlier, this would not have changed the outcome as H would still have faced a shortfall and had substantial funds available.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website