Upheld: unfair claim decline based on ambiguous policy wording complaint against HDI Global Specialty SE
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6393064 of 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim decline based on ambiguous policy wording complaint against HDI Global Specialty SE. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6393064 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HDI Global Specialty SE |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claim decline based on ambiguous policy wording |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | HDI Global Specialty SE must reconsider A's claim against all remaining policy terms and conditions (excluding the unoccupancy basis for decline). If the claim is accepted, HDI must reimburse A for repair costs upon receipt of proof of payment, plus interest at 8% simple per annum calculated from the date A paid for repairs to the date of reimbursement. |
Summary
A, a company, purchased landlord insurance from HDI in November 2024 for a property undergoing renovations before tenant move-in. An escape of water from loft pipes caused approximately £12,000 in damage days before tenants were due to arrive. HDI declined the claim, citing that the property was unoccupied and A had failed to drain pipes and shut off water supply as required by policy conditions. The ombudsman upheld A's complaint, finding the policy's definition of 'unoccupied' to be ambiguous and circular, and that A could reasonably have interpreted the property as occupied given the extensive contractor presence during renovations. HDI must reconsider the claim against remaining policy terms and reimburse A if accepted, plus 8% interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The policy definition of 'unoccupied' is circular and ambiguous, lacking a corresponding definition of 'occupied'. A reasonable policyholder, particularly one with extensive contractor presence over two months, could legitimately interpret the property as 'occupied' despite tenants not yet residing there. HDI could have clarified this through minor wording changes but failed to do so. Therefore, HDI cannot fairly decline the claim based on the unoccupancy condition.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HDI Global Specialty SE, all decisions | 282 | 46% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 20,668 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website