Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms A, a director of M, complained that Aviva unfairly declined a claim for water damage to an attic bedroom in a holiday home, which she believed was caused by storm damage after 20 January 2026. Aviva declined the claim stating there were no storm conditions and the damage was due to wear and tear. The ombudsman examined weather data from stations near the property and found maximum wind speeds of 40-41mph, below storm force levels, with no intense rainfall or snow during the relevant period. The ombudsman applied the three-part test for storm claims and found the first element (storm conditions) could not be established, making it unnecessary to consider other factors. The complaint was not upheld as the damage was not caused by an insured peril under the policy.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the three-part test for storm claims: whether storm conditions occurred, whether damage is consistent with storm damage, and whether storm was the main cause. Since no storm conditions were present (wind speeds of 40-41mph are below storm force levels and no intense rainfall or snow occurred), the first question could not be answered affirmatively. Therefore, the complaint could not be upheld. The ombudsman noted that heavy rain alone rarely causes damage to well-maintained properties and is more likely to highlight existing faults. The internal damage was not covered under accidental damage due to a water exclusion.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website